Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Remedial Forum
49 views
Skip to first unread message
Ellen
May 10, 2012, 5:05:01 PM5/10/12
to
Hey "Tex,"
Someone needs to call back your under-educated little friend for
Remedial Landmark Forum. He's doing a bang-up job of ~making Landmark
look bad.~
Ellen
Someone needs to call back your under-educated little friend for
Remedial Landmark Forum. He's doing a bang-up job of ~making Landmark
look bad.~
Ellen
Sinead (Author)
May 10, 2012, 8:21:29 PM5/10/12
to
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.landmark/msg/8e337b3a1e8042d2
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.landmark/msg/283330a8f085255d
Ellen
May 11, 2012, 11:43:32 AM5/11/12
to
On May 10, 5:21 pm, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Didn't they tell you?
This is the back-water for failed Landmarkers -- those improperly or
badly brainwashed who didn't ~get~ the correct programming and are
left to flounder around with their partial "training" and nowhere to
go. Landmarkers don't want them and the anti-cult community have
nothing for them. They really have no other home as they've picked up
the worst bits of est-hole-ness without the veneer of "salesmanship"
to round off the rough edges. They are unapologetic narcissists
without the charm. Seems like you are one of the above. How did you
hear about us? "Tex" is the long-haul hold out. He thinks by
jousting with the internet critics, he has something to contribute to
the cult that doesn't want him. He's bored everyone to death except
the few of us left here who apparently have a formidable tolerance for
repetition -- or who just mostly ignore him.
Ellen
wrote:
This is the back-water for failed Landmarkers -- those improperly or
badly brainwashed who didn't ~get~ the correct programming and are
left to flounder around with their partial "training" and nowhere to
go. Landmarkers don't want them and the anti-cult community have
nothing for them. They really have no other home as they've picked up
the worst bits of est-hole-ness without the veneer of "salesmanship"
to round off the rough edges. They are unapologetic narcissists
without the charm. Seems like you are one of the above. How did you
hear about us? "Tex" is the long-haul hold out. He thinks by
jousting with the internet critics, he has something to contribute to
the cult that doesn't want him. He's bored everyone to death except
the few of us left here who apparently have a formidable tolerance for
repetition -- or who just mostly ignore him.
Ellen
Sinead (Author)
May 11, 2012, 2:53:05 PM5/11/12
to
> Didn't they tell you?
> This is the back-water for failed Landmarkers -- those improperly or
> badly brainwashed who didn't ~get~ the correct programming and are
> left to flounder around with their partial "training" and nowhere to
> go. Landmarkers don't want them and the anti-cult community have
> nothing for them. They really have no other home as they've picked up
> the worst bits of est-hole-ness without the veneer of "salesmanship"
> to round off the rough edges. They are unapologetic narcissists
> without the charm. Seems like you are one of the above.
> How did you hear about us?
> "Tex" is the long-haul hold out. He thinks by
> jousting with the internet critics, he has something to contribute to
> the cult that doesn't want him.
about him?
> He's bored everyone to death except
"everyone" in a long time!
Ellen
May 11, 2012, 5:00:32 PM5/11/12
to
On May 11, 11:53 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Sooooo...
Here's the deal: They turned you loose, ("Let's get rid of this p-r-*-
c-k before he does any internal damage"), with your new 'n' fun
~tools~ and are probably all laughing back at the clubhouse at their
cleverness. They "trained" you to discredit or disallow any evidence,
anything anyone says, any history, any creeping doubts, any
skepticism, any real questions so you don't have to accept, hear, take
in, or believe any of the chatter that is ~negative~ towards
Landmark. Funny thing though; they inserted a bit of "programming"
that prevents you from turning the same ~tools~ against the cult or
using the same dismissals towards anything they say. Think about it.
Ellen
wrote:
> > Didn't they tell you?
>
> Who is "they"? Rick Ross and a few other slavish Rick Ross devotees?
>
> > This is the back-water for failed Landmarkers -- those improperly or
> > badly brainwashed who didn't ~get~ the correct programming and are
> > left to flounder around with their partial "training" and nowhere to
> > go. Landmarkers don't want them and the anti-cult community have
> > nothing for them. They really have no other home as they've picked up
> > the worst bits of est-hole-ness without the veneer of "salesmanship"
> > to round off the rough edges. They are unapologetic narcissists
> > without the charm. Seems like you are one of the above.
>
> "Seems like" to who? You? Who else?
>
> > How did you hear about us?
>
> Internet message board windbags like yourself are not hard to find.
>
> > "Tex" is the long-haul hold out. He thinks by
> > jousting with the internet critics, he has something to contribute to
> > the cult that doesn't want him.
>
> Tex told you this? or you read his mind? or is this is your cool story
> about him?
>
> > He's bored everyone to death except
>
> You talked to "everyone"? How is "everyone" doing? Haven't seen
> "everyone" in a long time!
P'ert near. Yep.
>
> Who is "they"? Rick Ross and a few other slavish Rick Ross devotees?
>
> > This is the back-water for failed Landmarkers -- those improperly or
> > badly brainwashed who didn't ~get~ the correct programming and are
> > left to flounder around with their partial "training" and nowhere to
> > go. Landmarkers don't want them and the anti-cult community have
> > nothing for them. They really have no other home as they've picked up
> > the worst bits of est-hole-ness without the veneer of "salesmanship"
> > to round off the rough edges. They are unapologetic narcissists
> > without the charm. Seems like you are one of the above.
>
> "Seems like" to who? You? Who else?
>
> > How did you hear about us?
>
> Internet message board windbags like yourself are not hard to find.
>
> > "Tex" is the long-haul hold out. He thinks by
> > jousting with the internet critics, he has something to contribute to
> > the cult that doesn't want him.
>
> Tex told you this? or you read his mind? or is this is your cool story
> about him?
>
> > He's bored everyone to death except
>
> You talked to "everyone"? How is "everyone" doing? Haven't seen
> "everyone" in a long time!
Sooooo...
Here's the deal: They turned you loose, ("Let's get rid of this p-r-*-
c-k before he does any internal damage"), with your new 'n' fun
~tools~ and are probably all laughing back at the clubhouse at their
cleverness. They "trained" you to discredit or disallow any evidence,
anything anyone says, any history, any creeping doubts, any
skepticism, any real questions so you don't have to accept, hear, take
in, or believe any of the chatter that is ~negative~ towards
Landmark. Funny thing though; they inserted a bit of "programming"
that prevents you from turning the same ~tools~ against the cult or
using the same dismissals towards anything they say. Think about it.
Ellen
patrick
May 11, 2012, 6:13:30 PM5/11/12
to
On May 11, 1:53 pm, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
female human or human male ?
wrote:
Sinead (Author)
May 11, 2012, 6:32:57 PM5/11/12
to
mother of all religious cults.
Serena Nordstrup
May 12, 2012, 12:46:08 AM5/12/12
to
Tex
May 12, 2012, 3:31:24 AM5/12/12
to
Friends with Rick A Ross?
You betcha. ;)
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/religious-experts/false-experts/rick-ross/mental-instability/
A November 26, 1975, report by Dr. Thomas O’Brien states that Ross is “an opportunist” and that during Ross’ second jailing, he showed “many signs of serious psychological decompensation”. Apparently during his second jailing (for the jewelry theft) Ross made a serious suicide attempt.
The January 14, 1976, “Presentence Investigation” of Rick Ross for the jewelry store embezzlement describes the July 23,1975, incident and states that he has spent six weeks in jail since being arrested. Ross stated that he was seeking help from the Fillmore Mental Clinic.
This report recommended Ross serve a maximum term in the state prison. A March 25, 1976, Arizona State Hospital report on Rick Ross by Dr. Domiclano E. Santos states that Ross sought help at the Fillmore Mental Health Services because of “anxiety, depression and sexual problems.”
Dr. Domiclano reports that he saw Ross as:
“an arrogant, self-centered individual with some hostile tendencies” and as “an individual who has sociopathic inclinations”
He further stated that:
“Ricky has a personality disturbance which started even as a child. & He does not seem to profit from his past experiences and cannot realize that he has a responsibility to society to control his behavior & [H]e does not seem to identify himself with society and its laws, and believes that punishments are an injustice.”
Sinead (Author)
May 12, 2012, 8:46:02 AM5/12/12
to
> The ramblings of a delusional psychotic.
Only Caligari, Ellen, Patrick, and Rick are allowed to use ad
hominems!!!! Didn't you get the memo from Rick?
> Friends with Rick A Ross?
> You betcha. ;)
onto the scene any moment!
patrick
May 12, 2012, 10:32:53 AM5/12/12
to
>
> A November 26, 1975, report by Dr. Thomas O’Brien states that Ross is “an opportunist” and that during Ross’ second jailing, he showed “many signs of serious psychological decompensation”. Apparently during his second jailing (for the jewelry theft) Ross made a serious suicide attempt.
>
> The January 14, 1976, “Presentence Investigation” of Rick Ross for the jewelry store embezzlement describes the July 23,1975, incident and states that he has spent six weeks in jail since being arrested. Ross stated that he was seeking help from the Fillmore Mental Clinic.
>
> This report recommended Ross serve a maximum term in the state prison. A March 25, 1976, Arizona State Hospital report on Rick Ross by Dr. Domiclano E. Santos states that Ross sought help at the Fillmore Mental Health Services because of “anxiety, depression and sexual problems.”
>
> Dr. Domiclano reports that he saw Ross as:
>
> “an arrogant, self-centered individual with some hostile tendencies” and as “an individual who has sociopathic inclinations”
>
> He further stated that:
>
> “Ricky has a personality disturbance which started even as a child. & He does not seem to profit from his past experiences and cannot realize that he has a responsibility to society to control his behavior & [H]e does not seem to identify himself with society and its laws, and believes that punishments are an injustice.”
was the author either paid by landmark or the dr do a couse , become
> A November 26, 1975, report by Dr. Thomas O’Brien states that Ross is “an opportunist” and that during Ross’ second jailing, he showed “many signs of serious psychological decompensation”. Apparently during his second jailing (for the jewelry theft) Ross made a serious suicide attempt.
>
> The January 14, 1976, “Presentence Investigation” of Rick Ross for the jewelry store embezzlement describes the July 23,1975, incident and states that he has spent six weeks in jail since being arrested. Ross stated that he was seeking help from the Fillmore Mental Clinic.
>
> This report recommended Ross serve a maximum term in the state prison. A March 25, 1976, Arizona State Hospital report on Rick Ross by Dr. Domiclano E. Santos states that Ross sought help at the Fillmore Mental Health Services because of “anxiety, depression and sexual problems.”
>
> Dr. Domiclano reports that he saw Ross as:
>
> “an arrogant, self-centered individual with some hostile tendencies” and as “an individual who has sociopathic inclinations”
>
> He further stated that:
>
> “Ricky has a personality disturbance which started even as a child. & He does not seem to profit from his past experiences and cannot realize that he has a responsibility to society to control his behavior & [H]e does not seem to identify himself with society and its laws, and believes that punishments are an injustice.”
brainwashed and spit out good garbage about the cult like tex :)
Tex
May 12, 2012, 12:47:40 PM5/12/12
to
Landmark didn't exist for another 17 0r 18 years, Pat.
Did you read the post?
Notice the dates?
1975 Pat.
patrick
May 12, 2012, 1:23:24 PM5/12/12
to
what do u think the psychiatrists would say about u ?
Ellen
May 12, 2012, 1:26:10 PM5/12/12
to
On May 12, 5:46 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Gee...
Sorta like your pal, "Tex."
Did you drink "Tex's" Kool-Aid? Or was it the other way around.
Ellen
wrote:
Sorta like your pal, "Tex."
Did you drink "Tex's" Kool-Aid? Or was it the other way around.
Ellen
Ellen
May 12, 2012, 1:35:14 PM5/12/12
to
mountain of research and reference and thousands of writers and
recountings and testimonials because he can cite, (for the hundredth
time), this bit of "evidence" about Rick Ross.
Hey "Sin," they're just so many ~stories.~ (Wink-wink.)
And "Tex" would like you to believe Rick Ross made them all up.
Don't like Rick? Most of the information is available from other
sources.
Ellen
Tex
May 12, 2012, 3:57:28 PM5/12/12
to
Hardly research to anyone who evaluates info critically.
Newspaper and magazine articles don't rise to the level of "research," either.
The newsgroup is moderated by a dishonest con-man convicted twice of crimes and charged and tried for kidnapping, sued for wrongful imprisonment for that case and losing a multi-million dollar settlement to boot.
There is your "chat room" moderator. :)
> and recountings and testimonials because he can cite, (for the hundredth
> time), this bit of "evidence" about Rick Ross.
OK, Sin, you can LoL LOL on that one with Ellen. ;)
>
> Hey "Sin," they're just so many ~stories.~ (Wink-wink.)
>
> And "Tex" would like you to believe Rick Ross made them all up.
Many others made them up with him.
> Hey "Sin," they're just so many ~stories.~ (Wink-wink.)
>
> And "Tex" would like you to believe Rick Ross made them all up.
A highly unreliable source of info.
Serena Nordstrup
May 13, 2012, 8:05:34 AM5/13/12
to
> The newsgroup is moderated by a dishonest con-man convicted twice of crimes and charged and tried for kidnapping, sued for wrongful imprisonment for that case and losing a multi-million dollar settlement to boot.
>
> There is your "chat room" moderator. :)
to landmarkeducation.com ...
Sinead (Author)
May 13, 2012, 8:09:37 AM5/13/12
to
Defending your "Guru" Rick Ross again?
Serena Nordstrup
May 14, 2012, 3:10:20 AM5/14/12
to
On May 14, 12:09 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
wrote:
> Defending your "Guru" Rick Ross again?
... or following the discussion whither it flows ... ?
Sinead (Author)
May 14, 2012, 8:41:10 AM5/14/12
to
> ... or following the discussion whither it flows ... ?
"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
Ellen
May 14, 2012, 1:08:11 PM5/14/12
to
On May 14, 5:41 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Someone, ("Tex?"), told "Sin" the way to ~win~ is just to keep
repeating the same old garbage over and over ad nauseam. Eventually
everyone will just become bored into silence and go do something
else. They ~interpret~ that as a ~win~ at Landmark.
HMmmmm....Sounds like that bit of "programming:" "If you keep saying
it, blah, blah, blah..." I guess he took it to heart.
(Psssst "Sin," that's some of the original scientology content Werner
Erhard "adopted" for his est "programs.")
Ellen
wrote:
repeating the same old garbage over and over ad nauseam. Eventually
everyone will just become bored into silence and go do something
else. They ~interpret~ that as a ~win~ at Landmark.
HMmmmm....Sounds like that bit of "programming:" "If you keep saying
it, blah, blah, blah..." I guess he took it to heart.
(Psssst "Sin," that's some of the original scientology content Werner
Erhard "adopted" for his est "programs.")
Ellen
Tex
May 14, 2012, 1:29:22 PM5/14/12
to
Sinead (Author)
May 14, 2012, 1:58:38 PM5/14/12
to
> Someone, ("Tex?"), told "Sin" the way to ~win~ is just to keep repeating the same old garbage over and over ad nauseam. Eventually everyone will just become bored into silence and go do something else.
out the same questions over and over ad nauseum at posters who have
no interest in answering to her? I have to agree, ?Serena's? tactic
is ridiculous.
> They ~interpret~ that as a ~win~ at Landmark.
> HMmmmm....Sounds like that bit of "programming:" "If you keep saying
> it, blah, blah, blah..." I guess he took it to heart.
Tex
May 14, 2012, 2:26:54 PM5/14/12
to
Here, people are free to fire back at her and counter her absurd posts.
At Rick Ross, she gets the moderator's shield and probably thins she's ~winning~.
It's really a transference of her hatred for a some people she know/knew that she feels victimized her and who also took a seminar or two that you or I may or may have have taken also.
It is her way of getting back at those folks.
In her strange, demented view of the world, anyone who doesn't agree with her criticisms and attacks on est or Landmark are complicit in her victimization.
Lot's of crazy people in the world.
One of the many logical fallacies she uses.
She thinks she's ~educated~, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion.
Ellen
May 14, 2012, 2:50:35 PM5/14/12
to
On May 14, 11:26 am, Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com> expelled some more
intellectual flatus:
(snip)
> Lot's of crazy people in the world.
(Not so crazy as to think Landmark/est is anything of merit outside
its own self-referential circle of brainwashed idiots.)
> One of the many logical fallacies she uses.
> She thinks she's ~educated~, though.
Gee...
They gave me a nice diploma at the (sort of) highly regarded institute
of higher learning I attended. Perhaps you should tell them to stop
making this ~assertion.~ Or maybe it's just their ~opinion.~
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
>
> An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty
(hmmmmm....This has been going on for three or four decades.)
generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one
thing are inherently qualities of another,
(Yep, lots of people, customers and outsiders, friends and foes, fans
and detractors have connected the dots, made the comparison, or
recognized the ~real~ ~Source.~)
merely by an irrelevant association. (Irrelevant? It's in Werner
Erhard's "official" biography -- the one he paid for.)
The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and
honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red
herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion.
(Or maybe some olfactory perception, as in: this stinks like
scientology.)
Ellen
intellectual flatus:
(snip)
> Lot's of crazy people in the world.
its own self-referential circle of brainwashed idiots.)
> One of the many logical fallacies she uses.
> She thinks she's ~educated~, though.
They gave me a nice diploma at the (sort of) highly regarded institute
of higher learning I attended. Perhaps you should tell them to stop
making this ~assertion.~ Or maybe it's just their ~opinion.~
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
>
> An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty
generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one
thing are inherently qualities of another,
and detractors have connected the dots, made the comparison, or
recognized the ~real~ ~Source.~)
merely by an irrelevant association. (Irrelevant? It's in Werner
Erhard's "official" biography -- the one he paid for.)
The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and
honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red
herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion.
scientology.)
Ellen
Sinead (Author)
May 14, 2012, 2:53:12 PM5/14/12
to
> She has been repeating the same ad hominem screeds for years and years.
> Here, people are free to fire back at her and counter her absurd posts.
> At Rick Ross, she gets the moderator's shield and probably thins she's ~winning~.
how many "discussions" they and Caligari slink away from when faced
with facts or the "reality" of Erhard's and Landmark daunting positive
influence on so many, they keep on going perceiving themselves
fighting the good fight against some evil doer that exists in their
minds. Even if they have to get into bed with personas like Patrick
who form part of their army of light :-)
"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"
> It's really a transference of her hatred for a some people she know/knew that she feels victimized her and who also took a seminar or two that you or I may or may >have have taken also.
>It is her way of getting back at those folks.
>In her strange, demented view of the world, anyone who doesn't agree
with her criticisms and attacks on est or Landmark are complicit in
her victimization.
Caligari making the wrong choices for himself and not managing himself
the way most people do, can never be admitted to or else the whole
house of cards would come down and they would be exposed for what they
really are, run of the mill sour grapes, and not freedom fighters as
part of some on line Arab spring.
Tex
May 14, 2012, 8:16:50 PM5/14/12
to
On Monday, May 14, 2012 2:50:35 PM UTC-4, Ellen wrote:
> On May 14, 11:26 am, Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com> expelled some more
> intellectual flatus:
>
>
> (snip)
>
>
> > Lot's of crazy people in the world.
>
> (Not so crazy as to think Landmark/est is anything of merit outside
> its own self-referential circle of brainwashed idiots.)
>
>
> > One of the many logical fallacies she uses.
> > She thinks she's ~educated~, though.
>
>
> Gee...
>
> They gave me a nice diploma at the (sort of) highly regarded institute
> of higher learning I attended. Perhaps you should tell them to stop
> making this ~assertion.~ Or maybe it's just their ~opinion.~
Or maybe this is simply another unsubstantiated claim by you.
> On May 14, 11:26 am, Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com> expelled some more
> intellectual flatus:
>
>
> (snip)
>
>
> > Lot's of crazy people in the world.
>
> (Not so crazy as to think Landmark/est is anything of merit outside
> its own self-referential circle of brainwashed idiots.)
>
>
> > One of the many logical fallacies she uses.
> > She thinks she's ~educated~, though.
>
>
> Gee...
>
> They gave me a nice diploma at the (sort of) highly regarded institute
> of higher learning I attended. Perhaps you should tell them to stop
> making this ~assertion.~ Or maybe it's just their ~opinion.~
What was your major again?
Propaganda?
We can judge what you claim to know by your posts.
The evidence indicates a great deal of ignorance surrounding areas you claim you have great ~expertise~.
>
>
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
> >
> > An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty
>
> (hmmmmm....This has been going on for three or four decades.)
>
>
> generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one
> thing are inherently qualities of another,
>
>
> (Yep, lots of people, customers and outsiders, friends and foes, fans
> and detractors have connected the dots, made the comparison, or
> recognized the ~real~ ~Source.~)
>
>
> merely by an irrelevant association. (Irrelevant? It's in Werner
> Erhard's "official" biography -- the one he paid for.)
>
>
> The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and
> honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red
> herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion.
>
> (Or maybe some olfactory perception, as in: this stinks like scientology.)
I was referring to your association fallacy regarding people you have known and hate that have taken a certain seminar and others you haven't even met.
>
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
> >
> > An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty
>
> (hmmmmm....This has been going on for three or four decades.)
>
>
> generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one
> thing are inherently qualities of another,
>
>
> (Yep, lots of people, customers and outsiders, friends and foes, fans
> and detractors have connected the dots, made the comparison, or
> recognized the ~real~ ~Source.~)
>
>
> merely by an irrelevant association. (Irrelevant? It's in Werner
> Erhard's "official" biography -- the one he paid for.)
>
>
> The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and
> honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red
> herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion.
>
> (Or maybe some olfactory perception, as in: this stinks like scientology.)
You roll everyone into one pot in the same way bigots do in demonizing various groups associated with some ethnicity or religion.
Hardly an indication of an educated, intelligent person.
Your hateful screeds are what define you here, Ellen.
Unsubstantiated claims of education and ~expertise~ stand in contrast to your illogical prejudices.
Here is an excerpt from the "Ontology of Prejudice".
You should read it, Ellen.
What is the illogical drive that fuels prejudice?
Having its foundation in narcissism, prejudice is a particular mode of self-orientation which becomes organized within personality and expressed in innumerable forms with increasingly complex and over determined motivations.
It continues, but the definition defines you Ellen, spot on.
http://tinyurl.com/coaen5u
>
>
> Ellen
Serena Nordstrup
May 15, 2012, 5:34:00 AM5/15/12
to
On May 15, 12:41 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Doesn't even look like a discussion to me ... more like a stuck paste-
buffer.
wrote:
buffer.
Serena Nordstrup
May 15, 2012, 5:39:12 AM5/15/12
to
On May 15, 5:58 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
characteristics ...
wrote:
> > Someone, ("Tex?"), told "Sin" the way to ~win~ is just to keep repeating the same old garbage over and over ad nauseam. Eventually everyone will just become bored into silence and go do something else.
>
> Surely, you are talking about ?Serena's? brain dead tactic of firing
> out the same questions over and over ad nauseum at posters who have
> no interest in answering to her?
Posters displaying "no interest in answering " may also display other
>
> Surely, you are talking about ?Serena's? brain dead tactic of firing
> out the same questions over and over ad nauseum at posters who have
> no interest in answering to her?
characteristics ...
Serena Nordstrup
May 15, 2012, 8:10:11 AM5/15/12
to
On May 15, 6:26 am, Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Monday, May 14, 2012 1:58:38 PM UTC-4, Sinead (Author) wrote:
> > > Someone, ("Tex?"), told "Sin" the way to ~win~ isjustto keep repeating the same old garbage over and over ad nauseam. Eventuallyeveryonewilljustbecomeboredintosilenceandgodosomethingelse.
> On Monday, May 14, 2012 1:58:38 PM UTC-4, Sinead (Author) wrote:
>
> > Surely, you are talking about ?Serena's? brain dead tactic of firing
> > out the same questions over and over ad nauseum at posters who have
> > no interest in answering to her? I have to agree, ?Serena's? tactic
> > is ridiculous.
>
> > > They ~interpret~ that as a ~win~ at Landmark.
> > > HMmmmm....Sounds like that bit of "programming:" "If you keep saying
> > > it, blah, blah, blah..." I guess he took it to heart.
>
> > You talk rubbish. Hope your good looking at least.
>
> > > (Psssst "Sin," that's some of the original scientology content Werner
> > > Erhard "adopted" for his est "programs.")
>
> > > Ellen
>
> She has been repeating the same ad hominem screeds for years and years.
> Here, people are free to fire back at her and counter her absurd posts.
> At Rick Ross, she gets the moderator's shield and probably thins she's ~winning~.
>
> It's really a transference of her hatred
Really? you have proof of this claim?
> > Surely, you are talking about ?Serena's? brain dead tactic of firing
> > out the same questions over and over ad nauseum at posters who have
> > no interest in answering to her? I have to agree, ?Serena's? tactic
> > is ridiculous.
>
> > > They ~interpret~ that as a ~win~ at Landmark.
> > > HMmmmm....Sounds like that bit of "programming:" "If you keep saying
> > > it, blah, blah, blah..." I guess he took it to heart.
>
> > You talk rubbish. Hope your good looking at least.
>
> > > (Psssst "Sin," that's some of the original scientology content Werner
> > > Erhard "adopted" for his est "programs.")
>
> > > Ellen
>
> She has been repeating the same ad hominem screeds for years and years.
> Here, people are free to fire back at her and counter her absurd posts.
> At Rick Ross, she gets the moderator's shield and probably thins she's ~winning~.
>
> It's really a transference of her hatred
Sinead (Author)
May 15, 2012, 8:45:47 AM5/15/12
to
> Really? you have proof of this claim?
"proof" to support anything you have ever said in alt.fan.landmark?
You three are all hypocrites and liars and trolls and a cultist and
Rick Ross devotees! You want proof? I don't need any, it is true
because I posted it on the internet.
Ellen
May 15, 2012, 9:51:58 PM5/15/12
to
On May 15, 5:45 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Nope.
In your twisted, hobbled, and intoxicated little Landmark-flavored
life, ~it's true 'cause it's true for YYYOOOUUU.~ It doesn't have to
be true for anybody else. It doesn't have to be true by any generic
standards. It doesn't have to stand against any evidence to the
contrary. None of that matters. And if I can trick you into
~experiencing~ some fake psycho-babble-philosphical nonsense, you'll
hold on to it as tightly as if you'd thought it up yourself. Oh wait,
according to Weener, you did. It's all your ~creation~ -- est, "your"
Forum, Werner's history, all the other "grads," me, alt.fan.landmark,
Caligari, the computer on your desk, the ~controversy,~ all the lined-
up chairs and sharpened pencils, the ~tech,~ Serena, and the coffee
(Kool-Aid) in your cup. You grew it. Or ~created~ it being grown.
So how do you ~take responsibility~ for ~creating~ all the criticism
here? How do you explain how we ~show up~ for you? What purpose are
we serving? Giving you a backdrop to display your phenomenal wit and
Landmark-inspired cleverness? Giving you a substrate upon which to
blossom in Landmark excellence? Giving you an audience to provoke you
into making Landmark ~look good?~
LOLOLOL
Ellen
wrote:
In your twisted, hobbled, and intoxicated little Landmark-flavored
life, ~it's true 'cause it's true for YYYOOOUUU.~ It doesn't have to
be true for anybody else. It doesn't have to be true by any generic
standards. It doesn't have to stand against any evidence to the
contrary. None of that matters. And if I can trick you into
~experiencing~ some fake psycho-babble-philosphical nonsense, you'll
hold on to it as tightly as if you'd thought it up yourself. Oh wait,
according to Weener, you did. It's all your ~creation~ -- est, "your"
Forum, Werner's history, all the other "grads," me, alt.fan.landmark,
Caligari, the computer on your desk, the ~controversy,~ all the lined-
up chairs and sharpened pencils, the ~tech,~ Serena, and the coffee
(Kool-Aid) in your cup. You grew it. Or ~created~ it being grown.
So how do you ~take responsibility~ for ~creating~ all the criticism
here? How do you explain how we ~show up~ for you? What purpose are
we serving? Giving you a backdrop to display your phenomenal wit and
Landmark-inspired cleverness? Giving you a substrate upon which to
blossom in Landmark excellence? Giving you an audience to provoke you
into making Landmark ~look good?~
LOLOLOL
Ellen
Message has been deleted
Sinead (Author)
May 16, 2012, 12:02:54 AM5/16/12
to
as facts
that are presented as if they are true just because one owns a
keyboard and a computer. It is ridiculous to think that just
because one posts something on the internet or read something someone
in their mother's basement posted on the internet it MUST be true or
at least partially true.
I do not hold the view that:
"You want proof?. I don't need any, it is true
because I posted it on the internet." for a minute.
Tex
May 16, 2012, 12:22:42 AM5/16/12
to
A bit dense, she is.
Narcissist tend to be rather self-involved.
She misses a lot when interacting with others.
Perhaps a touch of Asperger's syndrome too.
Ben Lewis
May 16, 2012, 12:33:49 AM5/16/12
to
On Tue, 15 May 2012 18:51:58 -0700 (PDT), Ellen <elle...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Wow...."Oh-Wait-Ellen" in rare form, up on her soap box!! A button
got mashed...maybe..
ben-estie
wrote:
got mashed...maybe..
ben-estie
Tex
May 16, 2012, 12:20:35 AM5/16/12
to
From the "Ontology of Prejudice"
Caligari
May 16, 2012, 2:32:13 AM5/16/12
to
On May 15, 5:45 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
What I have offered that you are referencing and what is it's
refutation?
-- Caligari
wrote:
refutation?
-- Caligari
Sinead (Author)
May 16, 2012, 7:46:22 AM5/16/12
to
benches or cafe' in SF's Union Square when the sun it out and it is
overcrowded with tourists. Just a magnificent spot IMO.
Sinead (Author)
May 16, 2012, 7:50:44 AM5/16/12
to
ugly rant at someone, with the usual "LOL's" at the end of course,
just to show how whimsical and superior she is to the world. She is
Rick Ross but with a light hearted spirit and joyfulness.
Serena Nordstrup
May 21, 2012, 9:39:39 AM5/21/12
to
On May 16, 12:45 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
irrefutable proof, but any proof beats no proof for normal folks.
> You three
... or the listed four ...
> are all hypocrites and liars and trolls and a cultist and
> Rick Ross devotees!
Leaving aside the unsupported ad-hominem claims, let's return to
finding any proof of Tex's claim that Ellen's posting "really"
represents "a transference of her hatred".
> You want proof? I don't need any, it is true
> because I posted it on the internet.
I want proof of Tex's claim that Ellen's posting "really" represents
"a transference of her hatred". Can you help?
wrote:
> > Really? you have proof of this claim?
>
> Have you, Rick, Ellen or Calgari, ever once offered any irrefutable
> "proof" to support anything you have ever said in alt.fan.landmark?
Dunno. Religious nutters and KoolAde-grade devotees may deal in
>
> Have you, Rick, Ellen or Calgari, ever once offered any irrefutable
> "proof" to support anything you have ever said in alt.fan.landmark?
irrefutable proof, but any proof beats no proof for normal folks.
> You three
... or the listed four ...
> are all hypocrites and liars and trolls and a cultist and
> Rick Ross devotees!
finding any proof of Tex's claim that Ellen's posting "really"
represents "a transference of her hatred".
> You want proof? I don't need any, it is true
> because I posted it on the internet.
"a transference of her hatred". Can you help?
Serena Nordstrup
May 21, 2012, 9:53:03 AM5/21/12
to
On May 16, 11:50 pm, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Apart from the ad-hominems and the sneering at style and the
association fallacy of associating Ellen with some other bete noires,
you have no issues with Ellen's strongly-expressed views ?
wrote:
association fallacy of associating Ellen with some other bete noires,
you have no issues with Ellen's strongly-expressed views ?
Serena Nordstrup
May 21, 2012, 9:47:09 AM5/21/12
to
On May 16, 4:02 pm, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
alt.fan.landmark, Sinead ?
> > How do you explain how we ~show up~ for you? What purpose are
> > we serving? Giving you a backdrop to display your phenomenal wit and
> > Landmark-inspired cleverness? Giving you a substrate upon which to
> > blossom in Landmark excellence? Giving you an audience to provoke you
> > into making Landmark ~look good?~
>
> > LOLOLOL
>
> > Ellen
>
> you missed my jab at the stupidity of claims and opinions dressed up
> as facts
> that are presented as if they are true just because one owns a
> keyboard and a computer.
You missed answering some juicy questions...
> It is ridiculous to think that just
> because one posts something on the internet or read something someone
> in their mother's basement posted on the internet it MUST be true or
> at least partially true.
>
> I do not hold the view that:
> "You want proof?. I don't need any, it is true
> because I posted it on the internet." for a minute.
On the other hand, how many repetitions of an untruth does it take for
the untruth to turn into a pseudo-truth?
wrote:
> On May 15, 9:51 pm, Ellen <ellena...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 15, 5:45 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > Really? you have proof of this claim?
>
> > > Have you, Rick, Ellen or Calgari, ever once offered any irrefutable
> > > "proof" to support anything you have ever said in alt.fan.landmark?
> > > You three are all hypocrites and liars and trolls and a cultist and
> > > Rick Ross devotees! You want proof? I don't need any, it is true
> > > because I posted it on the internet.
>
> > Nope.
>
> > In your twisted, hobbled, and intoxicated little Landmark-flavored
> > life, ~it's true 'cause it's true for YYYOOOUUU.~ It doesn't have to
> > be true for anybody else. It doesn't have to be true by any generic
> > standards. It doesn't have to stand against any evidence to the
> > contrary. None of that matters. And if I can trick you into
> > ~experiencing~ some fake psycho-babble-philosphical nonsense, you'll
> > hold on to it as tightly as if you'd thought it up yourself. Oh wait,
> > according to Weener, you did. It's all your ~creation~ -- est, "your"
> > Forum, Werner's history, all the other "grads," me, alt.fan.landmark,
> > Caligari, the computer on your desk, the ~controversy,~ all the lined-
> > up chairs and sharpened pencils, the ~tech,~ Serena, and the coffee
> > (Kool-Aid) in your cup. You grew it. Or ~created~ it being grown.
> > So how do you ~take responsibility~ for ~creating~ all the criticism
> > here?
Do you ~take responsibility~ for ~creating~ all the criticism in
>
> > On May 15, 5:45 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > Really? you have proof of this claim?
>
> > > Have you, Rick, Ellen or Calgari, ever once offered any irrefutable
> > > "proof" to support anything you have ever said in alt.fan.landmark?
> > > You three are all hypocrites and liars and trolls and a cultist and
> > > Rick Ross devotees! You want proof? I don't need any, it is true
> > > because I posted it on the internet.
>
> > Nope.
>
> > In your twisted, hobbled, and intoxicated little Landmark-flavored
> > life, ~it's true 'cause it's true for YYYOOOUUU.~ It doesn't have to
> > be true for anybody else. It doesn't have to be true by any generic
> > standards. It doesn't have to stand against any evidence to the
> > contrary. None of that matters. And if I can trick you into
> > ~experiencing~ some fake psycho-babble-philosphical nonsense, you'll
> > hold on to it as tightly as if you'd thought it up yourself. Oh wait,
> > according to Weener, you did. It's all your ~creation~ -- est, "your"
> > Forum, Werner's history, all the other "grads," me, alt.fan.landmark,
> > Caligari, the computer on your desk, the ~controversy,~ all the lined-
> > up chairs and sharpened pencils, the ~tech,~ Serena, and the coffee
> > (Kool-Aid) in your cup. You grew it. Or ~created~ it being grown.
> > So how do you ~take responsibility~ for ~creating~ all the criticism
> > here?
alt.fan.landmark, Sinead ?
> > How do you explain how we ~show up~ for you? What purpose are
> > we serving? Giving you a backdrop to display your phenomenal wit and
> > Landmark-inspired cleverness? Giving you a substrate upon which to
> > blossom in Landmark excellence? Giving you an audience to provoke you
> > into making Landmark ~look good?~
>
> > LOLOLOL
>
> > Ellen
>
> you missed my jab at the stupidity of claims and opinions dressed up
> as facts
> that are presented as if they are true just because one owns a
> keyboard and a computer.
> It is ridiculous to think that just
> because one posts something on the internet or read something someone
> in their mother's basement posted on the internet it MUST be true or
> at least partially true.
>
> I do not hold the view that:
> "You want proof?. I don't need any, it is true
> because I posted it on the internet." for a minute.
the untruth to turn into a pseudo-truth?
Serena Nordstrup
May 21, 2012, 9:56:25 AM5/21/12
to
On May 16, 4:33 pm, Ben Lewis <bentot1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2012 18:51:58 -0700 (PDT), Ellen <ellena...@gmail.com>
> >> Rick Ross devotees!Youwant proof? I don't need any, it is true
> >hold on to it as tightly as ifyou'd thought it up yourself. Oh wait,
> >according to Weener,youdid. It's all your ~creation~ -- est, "your"
> >So how doyou~take responsibility~ for ~creating~ all the criticism
> >here? How doyouexplain how we ~show up~ foryou? What purpose are
> >we serving? Givingyoua backdrop to display your phenomenal wit and
> >Landmark-inspired cleverness? Givingyouasubstrateuponwhich to
about her manner of presentation?
> On Tue, 15 May 2012 18:51:58 -0700 (PDT), Ellen <ellena...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 15, 5:45 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >> > Really?youhave proof of this claim?
>
> >> Haveyou, Rick, Ellen or Calgari, ever once offered any irrefutable
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 15, 5:45 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >> > Really?youhave proof of this claim?
>
> >> "proof" to support anythingyouhave ever said in alt.fan.landmark?
> >>Youthree are all hypocrites and liars and trolls and a cultist and
> >> Rick Ross devotees!Youwant proof? I don't need any, it is true
> >> because I posted it on the internet.
>
> >Nope.
>
> >In your twisted, hobbled, and intoxicated little Landmark-flavored
> >life, ~it's true 'cause it's true for YYYOOOUUU.~ It doesn't have to
> >be true for anybody else. It doesn't have to be true by any generic
> >standards. It doesn't have to stand against any evidence to the
> >contrary. None of that matters. And if I can trickyouinto
> >~experiencing~ some fake psycho-babble-philosphical nonsense,you'll
>
> >Nope.
>
> >In your twisted, hobbled, and intoxicated little Landmark-flavored
> >life, ~it's true 'cause it's true for YYYOOOUUU.~ It doesn't have to
> >be true for anybody else. It doesn't have to be true by any generic
> >standards. It doesn't have to stand against any evidence to the
> >contrary. None of that matters. And if I can trickyouinto
> >hold on to it as tightly as ifyou'd thought it up yourself. Oh wait,
> >according to Weener,youdid. It's all your ~creation~ -- est, "your"
> >Forum, Werner's history, all the other "grads," me, alt.fan.landmark,
> >Caligari, the computer on your desk, the ~controversy,~ all the lined-
> >up chairs and sharpened pencils, the ~tech,~ Serena, and the coffee
> >(Kool-Aid) in your cup. Yougrew it. Or ~created~ it being grown.
> >Caligari, the computer on your desk, the ~controversy,~ all the lined-
> >up chairs and sharpened pencils, the ~tech,~ Serena, and the coffee
> >So how doyou~take responsibility~ for ~creating~ all the criticism
> >here? How doyouexplain how we ~show up~ foryou? What purpose are
> >we serving? Givingyoua backdrop to display your phenomenal wit and
> >Landmark-inspired cleverness? Givingyouasubstrateuponwhich to
> >blossom in Landmark excellence? Givingyouan audience to provokeyou
> >into making Landmark ~look good?~
>
> >LOLOLOL
>
> >Ellen
>
> Wow...."Oh-Wait-Ellen" in rare form, up on her soap box!! A button
> got mashed...maybe..
You agree with Ellen's analysis, then, with only vague reservations
> >into making Landmark ~look good?~
>
> >LOLOLOL
>
> >Ellen
>
> Wow...."Oh-Wait-Ellen" in rare form, up on her soap box!! A button
> got mashed...maybe..
about her manner of presentation?
Serena Nordstrup
May 21, 2012, 9:59:15 AM5/21/12
to
have no quibbles with her analysis ?
Sinead (Author)
May 21, 2012, 10:41:30 AM5/21/12
to
> Do you ~take responsibility~ for ~creating~ all the criticism in
> alt.fan.landmark, Sinead ?
when there is no opportunity to get laid as part of the exercise. You
"really" have nothing anyone wants, with the possible exception of
other Rick Ross devotees and religious cultists like Patrick, in
alt.fan.landmark.
Ben Lewis
May 21, 2012, 10:49:39 AM5/21/12
to
Oh-Wait-Ellen's analysis might be received better if she would drop
the paranoia and hostility that dominates her presentation. She
hasn't learned than condescension and crotch-kicking doesn't garner a
positive response.
bentot
Ellen
May 21, 2012, 11:49:29 AM5/21/12
to
Sorry.
Ellen
Serena Nordstrup
May 24, 2012, 2:41:04 AM5/24/12
to
On May 22, 2:41 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadaut...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Do you ~take responsibility~ for ~creating~ all the criticism in
> > alt.fan.landmark, Sinead ?
>
> I don't answer questions from a female as daft and annoying as you
> when there is no opportunity to get laid as part of the exercise.
Leaving aside the ad-hominems and pending re-posing of the question by
> > Do you ~take responsibility~ for ~creating~ all the criticism in
> > alt.fan.landmark, Sinead ?
>
> I don't answer questions from a female as daft and annoying as you
> when there is no opportunity to get laid as part of the exercise.
a male persona (Bruno's attempts to portray me as androgynous
notwithstanding), I'll take that as a "no -- you (Sinead) do NOT ~take
responsibility~ for ~creating~ all the criticism in alt.fan.landmark
".
How then do we account for the criticism found in alt.fan.landmark ?
> You "really" have nothing anyone wants, with the possible exception of
> other Rick Ross devotees and religious cultists like Patrick, in
> alt.fan.landmark.
I won't expect any questions from you, but I reserve the right to
cross-examine.
Serena Nordstrup
May 24, 2012, 2:44:18 AM5/24/12
to
On May 22, 2:49 am, Ben Lewis <bentot1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 06:56:25 -0700 (PDT), Serena Nordstrup
>
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 06:56:25 -0700 (PDT), Serena Nordstrup
>
Serena Nordstrup
May 24, 2012, 2:48:27 AM5/24/12
to
express bodies of ~opinion~ sincerely and logically held and which
contribute to consistent and plausible world-views ?
Ellen
May 27, 2012, 12:26:21 AM5/27/12
to
On May 16, 4:50 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
I have to admit, I find it oddly amusing that people are still falling
for this third-rate psycho-religio-scam. It seems, in some strange,
tangential way, to be to be on a par with the other major human
tragedies of longing and faith. Though not on the level of, say, the
Vatican, or Orthodox Judaism, it's still a branch of human folly that
displays, in full flower, the silliness of human failings and of
maturational failure. Why do we continue to flock to the "gurus" who
pretend to offer the answers, absolution, "the work," ~technology,~
the "way," ~transformation,~ or "The Secret" with no more
consideration than if we were 10th Century peasants or hunt-and-gather
tribesmen. Our "new religions" may wear a 21st century suit of
clothes but underneath they are cave-men. When we need to find real-
world solutions for the problems of our survival, we're instead
chasing phantoms of ~success,~ status, wealth & privilege, fame &
fortune. We need pay more heed to Ecclesiastes or Ozymandias and less
to Jim & Tammy Faye.
Ellen
for this third-rate psycho-religio-scam. It seems, in some strange,
tangential way, to be to be on a par with the other major human
tragedies of longing and faith. Though not on the level of, say, the
Vatican, or Orthodox Judaism, it's still a branch of human folly that
displays, in full flower, the silliness of human failings and of
maturational failure. Why do we continue to flock to the "gurus" who
pretend to offer the answers, absolution, "the work," ~technology,~
the "way," ~transformation,~ or "The Secret" with no more
consideration than if we were 10th Century peasants or hunt-and-gather
tribesmen. Our "new religions" may wear a 21st century suit of
clothes but underneath they are cave-men. When we need to find real-
world solutions for the problems of our survival, we're instead
chasing phantoms of ~success,~ status, wealth & privilege, fame &
fortune. We need pay more heed to Ecclesiastes or Ozymandias and less
to Jim & Tammy Faye.
Ellen
tubby
May 27, 2012, 4:20:56 AM5/27/12
to
On the other hand I, Tex , Ben and Sinead have also that right.
Our opinion is just as valid as yours.
From a Scientific point of view it is more valid because at least for
us,
we have tried it, experimented with it, discussed it and finally paid
for
it, and thought the product was worth the price.
You, the Baroness, and others did not try it, so you are talking
through the voices
of others who did not get any benefit from interactions with ESt/
Landmark.
Namely Patrick and others.
I cannot consider Rick Ross because he has a vital interest in making
any thought
processes that are different from our Culture, as that is how he
makes his living.
His experiments are tainted with prejudice from the start.
I don't think there is any guarantee that everyone is going to be
happy being involved
in a radical thought process that often may question the roots of your
own culture.
Werner s'message as I understand it in essence is to take
responsibility for ones self and to move on.'
Cheers
Ellen
May 27, 2012, 11:07:20 AM5/27/12
to
On May 27, 1:20 am, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
(snip)
> Ellen you have every right to your opinion as noted above.
Gee thanks, Bruno.
> On the other hand I, Tex , Ben and Sinead have also that right.
>
> Our opinion is just as valid as yours.
No, they're not.
> From a Scientific point of view it is more valid because at least for
> us,
> we have tried it, experimented with it, discussed it and finally paid
> for
> it, and thought the product was worth the price.
You were brainwashed.
> You, the Baroness, and others did not try it, so you are talking
> through the voices
> of others who did not get any benefit from interactions with ESt/
> Landmark.
> Namely Patrick and others.
By what reasoning did you come to this conclusion.
> I cannot consider Rick Ross because he has a vital interest in making
> any thought
> processes that are different from our Culture, as that is how he
> makes his living.
> His experiments are tainted with prejudice from the start.
Provide some evidence.
> I don't think there is any guarantee that everyone is going to be
> happy being involved
> in a radical thought process that often may question the roots of your
> own culture.
It's a cult. "Everyone" is not going to be happy when they find out
that's what they've become "involved in."
> Werner s'message as I understand it in essence is to take
> responsibility for ones self and to move on.'
>
> Cheers
In all this time have you made no inroad whatsoever into the maze of
silly est/Landmark ~technology~ in order to see it for more than some
simple 5-cent platitude.
Ellen
(snip)
> Ellen you have every right to your opinion as noted above.
> On the other hand I, Tex , Ben and Sinead have also that right.
>
> Our opinion is just as valid as yours.
> From a Scientific point of view it is more valid because at least for
> us,
> we have tried it, experimented with it, discussed it and finally paid
> for
> it, and thought the product was worth the price.
> You, the Baroness, and others did not try it, so you are talking
> through the voices
> of others who did not get any benefit from interactions with ESt/
> Landmark.
> Namely Patrick and others.
> I cannot consider Rick Ross because he has a vital interest in making
> any thought
> processes that are different from our Culture, as that is how he
> makes his living.
> His experiments are tainted with prejudice from the start.
> I don't think there is any guarantee that everyone is going to be
> happy being involved
> in a radical thought process that often may question the roots of your
> own culture.
that's what they've become "involved in."
> Werner s'message as I understand it in essence is to take
> responsibility for ones self and to move on.'
>
> Cheers
silly est/Landmark ~technology~ in order to see it for more than some
simple 5-cent platitude.
Ellen
Tex
May 27, 2012, 5:31:02 PM5/27/12
to
On Sunday, May 27, 2012 11:07:20 AM UTC-4, Ellen wrote:
> On May 27, 1:20 am, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (snip)
>
> > Ellen you have every right to your opinion as noted above.
>
>
> Gee thanks, Bruno.
>
>
>
> > On the other hand I, Tex , Ben and Sinead have also that right.
> >
> > Our opinion is just as valid as yours.
>
>
> No, they're not.
This is true.
> On May 27, 1:20 am, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (snip)
>
> > Ellen you have every right to your opinion as noted above.
>
>
> Gee thanks, Bruno.
>
>
>
> > On the other hand I, Tex , Ben and Sinead have also that right.
> >
> > Our opinion is just as valid as yours.
>
>
> No, they're not.
Your opinion is based on second hand info with absolutely ZERO direct experience. The validity of your opinion should be questioned, if not discounted completely, due to your bigoted point of view.
>
>
>
> > From a Scientific point of view it is more valid because at least for
> > us,
> > we have tried it, experimented with it, discussed it and finally paid
> > for
> > it, and thought the product was worth the price.
>
>
> You were brainwashed.
>
You are brain dead. ;)
>
>
> > From a Scientific point of view it is more valid because at least for
> > us,
> > we have tried it, experimented with it, discussed it and finally paid
> > for
> > it, and thought the product was worth the price.
>
>
> You were brainwashed.
>
>
>
>
> > You, the Baroness, and others did not try it, so you are talking
> > through the voices
> > of others who did not get any benefit from interactions with ESt/
> > Landmark.
> > Namely Patrick and others.
>
>
> By what reasoning did you come to this conclusion.
>
>
>
>
> > I cannot consider Rick Ross because he has a vital interest in making
> > any thought
> > processes that are different from our Culture, as that is how he
> > makes his living.
> > His experiments are tainted with prejudice from the start.
>
>
> Provide some evidence.
Rick Ross is a twice convicted felon who was also tried for kidnapping.
>
>
> > You, the Baroness, and others did not try it, so you are talking
> > through the voices
> > of others who did not get any benefit from interactions with ESt/
> > Landmark.
> > Namely Patrick and others.
>
>
> By what reasoning did you come to this conclusion.
>
>
>
>
> > I cannot consider Rick Ross because he has a vital interest in making
> > any thought
> > processes that are different from our Culture, as that is how he
> > makes his living.
> > His experiments are tainted with prejudice from the start.
>
>
> Provide some evidence.
although he was acquitted his two accomplices did time for attempting to "deprogram" a Christian.
He has been sued and lost multi-million dollar lawsuits.
Was sued by his own uncle and aunt. (lost that one too)
Was sued by Landmark. (His big "victory", they dropped the suit)
In that lawsuit, a forensic writing analyst was prepared to testify that many of the anonymous "entities" on his website message board were in fact penned by Rick Ross himself.
To cut it short, he's a career con artist.
Want more?
Serena Nordstrup
May 28, 2012, 5:01:41 AM5/28/12
to
amusing that people are still falling for rosenbergism ?
Bruno, do you regard it as ~opinion~ that Ellen can ask why people
'continue to flock to the "gurus"'?
> On the other hand I, Tex , Ben and Sinead have also that right.
> Our opinion is just as valid as yours.
> From a Scientific point of view it is more valid because at least for
> us,
> we have tried it, experimented with it, discussed it and finally paid
> for
> it, and thought the product was worth the price.
Bruno?
> You, the Baroness, and others did not try it,
> so you are talking
> through the voices
> of others who did not get any benefit from interactions with ESt/
> Landmark.
> Namely Patrick and others.
How many others?
> I cannot consider Rick Ross because he has a vital interest in making
> any thought
> processes that are different from our Culture, as that is how he
> makes his living.
"vital interest".
> His experiments are tainted with prejudice from the start.
> I don't think there is any guarantee that everyone is going to be
> happy being involved
> in a radical thought process that often may question the roots of your
> own culture.
> Werner s'message as I understand it in essence is to take
> responsibility for ones self and to move on.'
> Cheers
Serena Nordstrup
May 28, 2012, 5:14:50 AM5/28/12
to
On May 28, 9:31 am, Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 27, 2012 11:07:20 AM UTC-4, Ellen wrote:
> > On May 27, 1:20 am, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > (snip)
>
> > > Ellen you have every right to your opinion as noted above.
>
> > Gee thanks, Bruno.
>
> > > On the other hand I, Tex , Ben and Sinead have also that right.
>
> > > Our opinion is just as valid as yours.
>
> > No, they're not.
>
> This is true.
> Your opinion is based on second hand info with absolutely ZERO direct experience.
... when uncontaminated by direct experience, one can profit from the
> On Sunday, May 27, 2012 11:07:20 AM UTC-4, Ellen wrote:
> > On May 27, 1:20 am, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > (snip)
>
> > > Ellen you have every right to your opinion as noted above.
>
> > Gee thanks, Bruno.
>
> > > On the other hand I, Tex , Ben and Sinead have also that right.
>
> > > Our opinion is just as valid as yours.
>
> > No, they're not.
>
> This is true.
> Your opinion is based on second hand info with absolutely ZERO direct experience.
considered judgements of various parties ...
> The validity of your opinion should be questioned, if not discounted completely, due to your bigoted point of view.
have circular reasoning here?
> > > From a Scientific point of view it is more valid because at least for
> > > us,
> > > we have tried it, experimented with it, discussed it and finally paid
> > > for
> > > it, and thought the product was worth the price.
>
> > You were brainwashed.
>
> You are brain dead. ;)
>
>
>
> > > You, the Baroness, and others did not try it, so you are talking
> > > through the voices
> > > of others who did not get any benefit from interactions with ESt/
> > > Landmark.
> > > Namely Patrick and others.
>
> > By what reasoning did you come to this conclusion.
>
> > > I cannot consider Rick Ross because he has a vital interest in making
> > > any thought
> > > processes that are different from our Culture, as that is how he
> > > makes his living.
> > > His experiments are tainted with prejudice from the start.
>
> > Provide some evidence.
>
> Rick Ross is a twice convicted felon who was also tried for kidnapping.
> although he was acquitted his two accomplices did time for attempting to "deprogram" a Christian.
> He has been sued and lost multi-million dollar lawsuits.
~opinions~) -- go figure ...
> Was sued by his own uncle and aunt. (lost that one too)
>
> Was sued by Landmark. (His big "victory", they dropped the suit)
>
> In that lawsuit, a forensic writing analyst was prepared to testify that many of the anonymous "entities" on his website message board were in fact penned by Rick Ross himself.
> To cut it short, he's a career con artist.
> Want more?
Well, yes. Because none of what you have stated or claimed provides
any evidence that Rick Ross "has a vital interest in making any
thought processes that are different from our Culture, as that is how
he makes his living." Moreover, none of what you have stated or
claimed provides any evidence that Rick Ross's "experiments are
tainted with prejudice from the start".
tubby
May 28, 2012, 9:59:58 AM5/28/12
to
He is a good friend of yours
You are always quoting him or asking about him/
I feel envious that he takes up so much of your time.
You do fancy him as a partner???
cheers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Cheers
Ellen
May 28, 2012, 4:08:40 PM5/28/12
to
Ellen
tubby
May 28, 2012, 7:48:04 PM5/28/12
to
On May 28, 1:07 am, Ellen <ellena...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 1:20 am, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (snip)
>
> > Ellen you have every right to your opinion as noted above.
>
> Gee thanks, Bruno.
>
> > On the other hand I, Tex , Ben and Sinead have also that right.
>
> > Our opinion is just as valid as yours.
>
> No, they're not.
Why Not?????
> On May 27, 1:20 am, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (snip)
>
> > Ellen you have every right to your opinion as noted above.
>
> Gee thanks, Bruno.
>
> > On the other hand I, Tex , Ben and Sinead have also that right.
>
> > Our opinion is just as valid as yours.
>
> No, they're not.
>
> > From a Scientific point of view it is more valid because at least for
> > us,
> > we have tried it, experimented with it, discussed it and finally paid
> > for
> > it, and thought the product was worth the price.
>
> You were brainwashed.
hand
opinion at that. Not very worthy.
>
> > You, the Baroness, and others did not try it, so you are talking
> > through the voices
> > of others who did not get any benefit from interactions with ESt/
> > Landmark.
> > Namely Patrick and others.
>
> By what reasoning did you come to this conclusion.
>
> > I cannot consider Rick Ross because he has a vital interest in making
> > any thought
> > processes that are different from our Culture, as that is how he
> > makes his living.
> > His experiments are tainted with prejudice from the start.
>
> Provide some evidence.
involved in.
If you perceived it from a neutral point you may have to give up your
work after
discovering it may be a tee bit unethical.
That:"s why "Its my Job" is the lame answer people give when
confronted
with any moral issue they may have to face.
>
> > I don't think there is any guarantee that everyone is going to be
> > happy being involved
> > in a radical thought process that often may question the roots of your
> > own culture.
>
> It's a cult. "Everyone" is not going to be happy when they find out
> that's what they've become "involved in."
>
> > Werner s'message as I understand it in essence is to take
> > responsibility for ones self and to move on.'
>
> > Cheers
>
> In all this time have you made no inroad whatsoever into the maze of
> silly est/Landmark ~technology~ in order to see it for more than some
> simple 5-cent platitude.
What I found useful in bringing an improvement to my relationship
with
people does not gel with you.
Okay. I'm certainly not going to give up just because for whatever
reason
it didn't work for you.
Interesting though that most people that got some benefit form their
experience
are more transparent in the group and more open and tolerant of
others??
Wonder why???
cheers
>
> Ellen
Tex
May 29, 2012, 1:45:14 AM5/29/12
to
your question?
Provide some evidence.
Thanks for asking. ;)
>
>
> Ellen
Serena Nordstrup
May 29, 2012, 4:24:09 AM5/29/12
to
> and more open and tolerant of
> others??
> Wonder why???
Serena Nordstrup
May 29, 2012, 4:17:49 AM5/29/12
to
undefined to your knowledge ? No worries?
Let's expand the question: Does rosenbergism ever define the
~responsibility~ thing ?
> you should ask him when you see him again.
> He is a good friend of yours
> You are always quoting him or asking about him/
> I feel envious that he takes up so much of your time.
>
> You do fancy him as a partner???
"Exploitation Partners"....
Ellen
May 29, 2012, 12:16:45 PM5/29/12
to
On May 28, 4:48 pm, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 28, 1:07 am, Ellen <ellena...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 27, 1:20 am, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > (snip)
>
> > > Ellen you have every right to your opinion as noted above.
>
> > Gee thanks, Bruno.
>
> > > On the other hand I, Tex , Ben and Sinead have also that right.
>
> > > Our opinion is just as valid as yours.
>
> > No, they're not.
>
> Why Not?????
By your reasoning, only a Moonie has a valid opinion of Moonism, only
> On May 28, 1:07 am, Ellen <ellena...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 27, 1:20 am, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > (snip)
>
> > > Ellen you have every right to your opinion as noted above.
>
> > Gee thanks, Bruno.
>
> > > On the other hand I, Tex , Ben and Sinead have also that right.
>
> > > Our opinion is just as valid as yours.
>
> > No, they're not.
>
> Why Not?????
a Hare Krishna devotee has a valid opinion of the Hare Krishna cult,
only a follower of Marshall Applewhite has a valid opinion of the
Heaven's Gate cult.
> > > From a Scientific point of view it is more valid because at least for
> > > us,
> > > we have tried it, experimented with it, discussed it and finally paid
> > > for
> > > it, and thought the product was worth the price.
Scientology?
> > You were brainwashed.
>
> That's just your opinion Ellen. Since you were never involved a second
> hand
> opinion at that. Not very worthy.
> > > You, the Baroness, and others did not try it, so you are talking
> > > through the voices
> > > of others who did not get any benefit from interactions with ESt/
> > > Landmark.
> > > Namely Patrick and others.
>
> > By what reasoning did you come to this conclusion.
>
> Look at your Emails.
>
>
>
> > > I cannot consider Rick Ross because he has a vital interest in making
> > > any thought
> > > processes that are different from our Culture, as that is how he
> > > makes his living.
> > > His experiments are tainted with prejudice from the start.
>
> > Provide some evidence.
>
> Practising Commerce taints your perception of the work you are
> involved in.
> If you perceived it from a neutral point you may have to give up your
> work after
> discovering it may be a tee bit unethical.
with jargon and two-bit platitudes. They give you some idea that you
are in possession of some superior ~technology,~ which is really
making you predictable and boring -- look at "Tex."
> That:"s why "Its my Job" is the lame answer people give when
> confronted
> with any moral issue they may have to face.
> > > I don't think there is any guarantee that everyone is going to be
> > > happy being involved
> > > in a radical thought process that often may question the roots of your
> > > own culture.
>
> > It's a cult. "Everyone" is not going to be happy when they find out
> > that's what they've become "involved in."
>
> Again just your opinion again Ellen.
>
>
>
> > > Werner s'message as I understand it in essence is to take
> > > responsibility for ones self and to move on.'
>
> > > Cheers
>
> > In all this time have you made no inroad whatsoever into the maze of
> > silly est/Landmark ~technology~ in order to see it for more than some
> > simple 5-cent platitude.
>
> Again Ellen your opinion.
>
> What I found useful in bringing an improvement to my relationship
> with
> people does not gel with you.
Any Landmark-tainted "relationship" is one I'd avoid like the plague.
> Okay. I'm certainly not going to give up just because for whatever
> reason
> it didn't work for you.
>
> Interesting though that most people that got some benefit form their
> experience
> are more transparent in the group and more open and tolerant of
> others??
>
> Wonder why???
programmed.
Ellen
Ellen
May 29, 2012, 12:25:35 PM5/29/12
to
> > > > > I cannot consider Rick Ross because he has a vital interest in making
> > > > > any thought
> > > > > processes that are different from our Culture, as that is how he
> > > > > makes his living.
> > > > > His experiments are tainted with prejudice from the start.
>
> > > > Provide some evidence.
interest in making any thought processes?" Or that "his experiments
are tainted?"
You've recounted his rap sheet here for the (?) thousandth time. How
does that make Landmark "legitimate?" How does that absolve Landmark
from its low-rent crimes against humanity? How does that make Weener
~look good~ or ~look any better~ than a sleezy con-artist?
Ellen
Tex
May 29, 2012, 8:48:18 PM5/29/12
to
Bruno mentioned prejudice by Ross.
Pretty obvious, really.
It is amusing that the most repetitive poster here, you Ellen, would accuse others of repetition.
You've been trotting out the same alliterative tirades for years now.
Blah blah blah, brainwashed blah blah blah Ofshe blah blah blah Lifton blah blah blah rickross.com
Who's the insufferable bore, Ellen?
You can't converse with others.
Kind of a wind-up bot.
Serena Nordstrup
May 30, 2012, 6:36:57 AM5/30/12
to
"many questions" by providing answers to the individually valid
questions...
> Bruno mentioned prejudice by Ross.
> Pretty obvious, really.
by heading up its page on ~landmark~ so-called ~education~ with the
bold link "Visit Landmark Education" which links to the highly
unreliable joke-site http://www.landmark-education.com/ ...
> It is amusing that the most repetitive poster here, you Ellen, would accuse others of repetition.
> You've been trotting out the same alliterative tirades for years now.
> Blah blah blah, brainwashed blah blah blah Ofshe blah blah blah Lifton blah blah blah rickross.com
>
> Who's the insufferable bore, Ellen?
> You can't converse with others.
> Kind of a wind-up bot.
Ellen
May 30, 2012, 1:54:50 PM5/30/12
to
To which "experiments" is Bruno referring?
Do you two geniuses know something the rest of the world doesn't?
Ellen
Membership Membershop
May 30, 2012, 10:50:46 PM5/30/12
to
> You've recounted his rap sheet here for the (?) thousandth time.
Recounting the exact same nonsense here for the (?) thousandth time is
your area of "mastery" Ellen.
> How does that make Landmark "legitimate?"
>How does that absolve Landmark from its low-rent crimes against humanity?
delusions that exists in your internal crazy place? No need.
> How does that make Weener ~look good~ or ~look any better~ than a sleezy con-artist?
you obsess over looks in some crazy delusions that exist in your
internal unextraordinary crazy place? No need.
>
> Ellen
Serena Nordstrup
May 31, 2012, 7:31:39 AM5/31/12
to
On May 31, 2:50 pm, Membership Membershop
commentators take precedence over comment? or do you want to exemplify
ad-hominem argument ?
> > How does that make Landmark "legitimate?"
>
> Who said Landmark was "legitimate"? Please provide evidence.
Do you want to discuss apparent legitimacy? or do you prefer to
exemplify red-herring argument?
> >How does that absolve Landmark from its low-rent crimes against humanity?
>
> This exists only in your mind Ellen. Who wants absolve some crazy
> delusions that exists in your internal crazy place? No need.
Do you wish to discuss rosenbergist crimes against humanity? or do you
propose to ~disappear~ such a sensitive topic?
> > How does that make Weener ~look good~ or ~look any better~ than a sleezy con-artist?
>
> This exists only in your mind Ellen. Who wants to later how someone
> you obsess over looks in some crazy delusions that exist in your
> internal unextraordinary crazy place? No need.
Do you wish to address rosenbergist image? or do you wish to deflect
attention from widespread concerns?
> > Ellen
<membershipmebers...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You've recounted his rap sheet here for the (?) thousandth time.
>
> Recounting the exact same nonsense here for the (?) thousandth time is
> your area of "mastery" Ellen.
Do you want to discuss the association fallacy whereby the deeds of
> > You've recounted his rap sheet here for the (?) thousandth time.
>
> Recounting the exact same nonsense here for the (?) thousandth time is
> your area of "mastery" Ellen.
commentators take precedence over comment? or do you want to exemplify
ad-hominem argument ?
> > How does that make Landmark "legitimate?"
>
> Who said Landmark was "legitimate"? Please provide evidence.
exemplify red-herring argument?
> >How does that absolve Landmark from its low-rent crimes against humanity?
>
> This exists only in your mind Ellen. Who wants absolve some crazy
> delusions that exists in your internal crazy place? No need.
propose to ~disappear~ such a sensitive topic?
> > How does that make Weener ~look good~ or ~look any better~ than a sleezy con-artist?
>
> This exists only in your mind Ellen. Who wants to later how someone
> you obsess over looks in some crazy delusions that exist in your
> internal unextraordinary crazy place? No need.
attention from widespread concerns?
> > Ellen
Tex
May 31, 2012, 10:18:25 AM5/31/12
to
>
> To which "experiments" is Bruno referring?
>
> Do you two geniuses know something the rest of the world doesn't?
Quite a bit more than you, particularly on the est/landmark topic.
> To which "experiments" is Bruno referring?
>
> Do you two geniuses know something the rest of the world doesn't?
Serena Nordstrup
Jun 1, 2012, 7:32:09 AM6/1/12
to
(I know that people often "practice" deceptions, but normally
"conduct" experiments...)
Ellen
Jun 1, 2012, 1:07:36 PM6/1/12
to
On May 30, 7:50 pm, Membership Membershop
<membershipmebers...@gmail.com> wrote:
(snip)
> This exists only in your mind Ellen. Who wants to later how someone
> you obsess over looks in some crazy delusions that exist in your
> internal unextraordinary crazy place? No need.
You, apparently, feel the need to read what I write and compose a
response.
You've make an extraordinary expenditure of time and energy into an
attempt to discredit Rick Ross. Why?
If neither of us is worthy of your, or anybody else's attention, why
spend so much time concerned with what we say?
Ellen
<membershipmebers...@gmail.com> wrote:
(snip)
> This exists only in your mind Ellen. Who wants to later how someone
> you obsess over looks in some crazy delusions that exist in your
> internal unextraordinary crazy place? No need.
response.
You've make an extraordinary expenditure of time and energy into an
attempt to discredit Rick Ross. Why?
If neither of us is worthy of your, or anybody else's attention, why
spend so much time concerned with what we say?
Ellen
patrick
Jun 1, 2012, 2:24:19 PM6/1/12
to
and i havent experimented on anybody.....at least not yet.
this one gets three smiley faces :) :) :)
Tex
Jun 1, 2012, 8:28:38 PM6/1/12
to
It's a worldwide conspiracy.
You and Ellen should ~research~ this and get back to us with your results.
The whole world awaits your pronouncements, as always.
tubby
Jun 1, 2012, 11:22:55 PM6/1/12
to
As Patty says put out your hands and feel the love.
Speaking for myself I take an interest in you and Baroness Nordstrup
in some way hoping to guide you away from your misspent youth into
the light!!!!!
We are all of us together in the soup feeling the "chthonian
ferocity"
and struggling to make sense of it.
Cheerws
Serena Nordstrup
Jun 2, 2012, 7:58:44 AM6/2/12
to
Serena Nordstrup
Jun 2, 2012, 8:02:43 AM6/2/12
to
On Jun 2, 3:22 pm, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 3:07 am, Ellen <ellena...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 30, 7:50 pm, Membership Membershop
>
> > <membershipmebers...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > (snip)
>
> > > This exists only in your mind Ellen. Who wants to later how someone
> > > you obsess over looks in some crazy delusions that exist in your
> > > internal unextraordinary crazy place? No need.
>
> > You, apparently, feel the need to read what I write and compose a
> > response.
>
> > You've make an extraordinary expenditure of time and energy into an
> > attempt to discredit Rick Ross. Why?
>
> > If neither of us is worthy of your, or anybody else's attention, why
> > spend so much time concerned with what we say?
>
> > Ellen
>
> Pretty simple dear Ellen,
>
> As Patty says put out your hands and feel the love.
That doesn't answer the question ...
> On Jun 2, 3:07 am, Ellen <ellena...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 30, 7:50 pm, Membership Membershop
>
> > <membershipmebers...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > (snip)
>
> > > This exists only in your mind Ellen. Who wants to later how someone
> > > you obsess over looks in some crazy delusions that exist in your
> > > internal unextraordinary crazy place? No need.
>
> > You, apparently, feel the need to read what I write and compose a
> > response.
>
> > You've make an extraordinary expenditure of time and energy into an
> > attempt to discredit Rick Ross. Why?
>
> > If neither of us is worthy of your, or anybody else's attention, why
> > spend so much time concerned with what we say?
>
> > Ellen
>
> Pretty simple dear Ellen,
>
> As Patty says put out your hands and feel the love.
> Speaking for myself I take an interest in you and Baroness Nordstrup
> in some way hoping to guide you away from your misspent youth into
> the light!!!!!
>
> We are all of us together in the soup feeling the "chthonian
> ferocity"
> and struggling to make sense of it.
booby-prize ...
bentot
Jun 2, 2012, 11:12:16 AM6/2/12
to
bentot
Serena Nordstrup
Jun 3, 2012, 4:29:52 AM6/3/12
to
On Jun 3, 3:12 am, bentot <bentot1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 05:02:43 -0700 (PDT), Serena Nordstrup
>
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 05:02:43 -0700 (PDT), Serena Nordstrup
>
soup feeling the "chthonian ferocity" and struggling to make sense of
it".
> Who are/is "us"?
it".
You needed to ask the question of Bruno (whom I have paraphrased)
when he wrote: "We are all of us together in the soup feeling the
bentot
Jun 3, 2012, 10:06:58 AM6/3/12
to
that understanding counts as the booby-prize ..."
My query stands.
bentot
Serena Nordstrup
Jun 4, 2012, 5:11:55 AM6/4/12
to
On Jun 4, 2:06 am, bentot <bentot1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 01:29:52 -0700 (PDT), Serena Nordstrup
>
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 01:29:52 -0700 (PDT), Serena Nordstrup
>
semantic ~distinction~ between "We are all of us [...] struggling to
make sense of [something]" and "None of us have accepted the view that
understanding counts as the booby-prize ..." ?)
> My query stands.
Address it to Bruno.
> bentot
bentot
Jun 4, 2012, 10:28:30 AM6/4/12
to
Serena Nordstrup
Jun 5, 2012, 6:21:22 AM6/5/12
to
On Jun 5, 2:28 am, bentot <bentot1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 02:11:55 -0700 (PDT), Serena Nordstrup
>
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 02:11:55 -0700 (PDT), Serena Nordstrup
>
encourage him to answer. Bruno has a fine and notable track record of
responding to my questions fully, clearly and simply...
tubby
Jun 5, 2012, 8:48:02 AM6/5/12
to
and I just loooooove such sophistication.
How about that drink Baroness.
Down at the Landmark Office.
Coke or Mineral water?????
Your boyfriend from down South
bentot
Jun 5, 2012, 9:38:01 AM6/5/12
to
0 new messages