~Integriy For Dummies;~ Werner At Harvard

[elle...@gmail.com]

Can they really be this clueless?


http://blogs.wsj.com/atwork/2012/10/12/how-integrity-can-save-your-company-and-the-world/



Ellen

[Caligari]

On Oct 29, 1:40 pm, ellena...@gmail.com wrote:
> Can they really be this clueless?
>

> http://blogs.wsj.com/atwork/2012/10/12/how-integrity-can-save-your-co...
>
> Ellen

Evidence that Werner's smart and that scholars and professors in the
social sciences tend to be insular, often lacking real integrity.

[Kenny McCormick]

> Evidence that Werner's smart and that scholars and professors in the
> social sciences tend to be insular, often lacking real integrity.

"Evidence" on wikipedia that you are a flake who has a biased
unsupported opinion about "scholars and professors in the social
sciences"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
"They tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their
existing position."

[Kenny McCormick]

On Oct 29, 4:40 pm, ellena...@gmail.com wrote:
> Can they really be this clueless?
>

> http://blogs.wsj.com/atwork/2012/10/12/how-integrity-can-save-your-co...
>
> Ellen

Yes, the whole world is "clueless" except for you. Only you know the
truth about everything. Somehow you have been bestowed with some
special all knowing seeing powers. it is wonderful to see you
~leading~ the world to joy and goodness one internet post at a time.

[elle...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 7:04:18 AM UTC-7, Kenny McCormick wrote:
> On Oct 29, 4:40 pm, ellena...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Can they really be this clueless?
>
> >
>
> > http://blogs.wsj.com/atwork/2012/10/12/how-integrity-can-save-your-co...
>
> >
>
> > Ellen
>
>
>
> Yes, the whole world is "clueless" except for you.

Nope. There are lots of us who can spot a cult or cult-like organisation.

>Only you know the
> truth about everything.

Everything? Or just the mechanisms and manipulations of cults and wannabe cult leaders. Not everything but enough about cults. Yours is the typical hand-wringing, hystrionic, wah, wah, wah...

>Somehow you have been bestowed with some
> special all knowing seeing powers.

Nope. Just ordinary critical-type thinking and some modicum of information and curiosity. You could learn to see how cults operate too. It's not that hard.

>it is wonderful to see you
> ~leading~ the world to joy and goodness one internet post at a time.

Thanks. For most people, it is a real blessing to be able to free themselves from cult-like mind control and the brainwashing to which they've been submitted. Read some of the testimonials from escapees. The worst day outside a cult is better than the best inside, don't you know.


Ellen

[Kenny McCormick]

> Nope.  There are lots of us who can spot a cult or cult-like organisation.  >

"lots of us"? How many savvy, in-the-know uses like you are there?

> Everything?  Or just the mechanisms and manipulations of cults and wannabe cult leaders.  Not everything but enough about cults.  Yours is the typical hand-wringing, hystrionic, wah, wah, wah...

"hand-wringing, hystrionic, wah, wah, wah" you know that describes you
the local romanian intellectual hand-wringing, hystrionic, wah, wah,
wah blowhard right?

> Nope.  Just ordinary critical-type thinking and some modicum of information and curiosity.  You could learn to see how cults operate too.  It's not that hard.

What are you "curious" about? I get the impression you have not
experienced anything that could be called openness or "curiosity" in
years.

>  The worst day outside a cult is better than the best inside, don't you know.

Vague catchy sounding cliche's is all you have?

[patrick]

yes, it must be for dummies :)

[elle...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 12:18:48 PM UTC-7, Kenny McCormick wrote:

> Vague catchy sounding cliche's is all you have?

You might want to direct you formidable discriminatory faculties toward this little tidbit, with it's ghost-of-ElRon stinking through the thing:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=932255

"...We present a positive model of integrity that, as we distinguish and define integrity, provides powerful access to increased performance for individuals, groups, organizations, and societies. Our model reveals the causal link between integrity and increased performance, quality of life, and value-creation for all entities, and provides access to that causal link. Integrity is thus a factor of production as important as knowledge and technology, yet its major role in productivity and performance has been largely hidden or unnoticed, or even ignored by economists and others."


...And because this is "Integrity For Dummies," the ElRon bit is in the secret-sauce ~causal~ link.


Ellen

[Kenny McCormick]

Your fixation with your brother's involvement with Scientology aside,
the only thing the Michael C. Jensen, Steve Zaffron, Werner Erhard's
paper "A New Model of Integrity: An Actionable Pathway to Trust,
Productivity and Value" shares with L Ron Hubbard, is the english
language.

You can spend the rest of your internet life trying to splice your
fixation and Erhard together, if that is where you find the most
peace and happiness. Do it.

Now calling anyone who does not see things the-Ellen-way a "dummy"?
Isn't that a Scientology practice? to fixate on a perceived enemy
and ceaselessly act out some kind of harsh "fair-game" thing on them?
You are the one stinking of with the "ghost-of-ElRon".

[Tex]

She is auditioning for Karl Rove's "Crossroads GPS" super pac.

Use logical fallacies, loose guilt by association fallacies, then declare yourself "Right" and anyone that disagrees with you stupid and or immoral.

I think she actually believes her own propaganda.
Then declare yourself in posesion of critical thinking skills that others don't have and stomp away.

It is amazing how well lies work, though.

30% of Republican voters think Obama is a Muslim.
Others think he's a Communist.

Some here thin Erhard and Zaffron or Michael Jensen are Scientologists.

Confirmation bias indeed.

This guy, Werner's Harvard friend, must be a commie, right?
All those Harvard guys are Commies, right?
Like Obama, that "Red diaper baby".
Oh yeah, and Romney.

http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/profile.aspx?facId=6484&facInfo=pub

[Serena Nordstrup]

.... unlike the smart and non-insular Wall Street Journal ...

[Serena Nordstrup]

On Oct 31, 3:04 am, Kenny McCormick <kennymccormicksf...@gmail.com>
wrote:

None of that rosenbergist ~leading~ obsession here -- just non-
Trappist self-expression.

[Serena Nordstrup]

On Nov 1, 2:04 pm, Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 3:28:36 PM UTC-4, Kenny McCormick wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 2:27 pm, ellena...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 12:18:48 PM UTC-7, Kenny McCormick wrote:
>
> > > > Vague catchy sounding cliche's is all you have?
>
> > > You might want to direct you formidable discriminatory faculties toward this little tidbit, with it's ghost-of-ElRon stinking through the thing:
>
> > >http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=932255
>
> > > "...We present a positive model of integrity that, as we distinguish and define integrity, provides powerful access to increased performance for individuals, groups, organizations, and societies. Our model reveals the causal link between integrity and increased performance, quality of life, and value-creation for all entities, and provides access to that causal link. Integrity is thus a factor of production as important as knowledge and technology, yet its major role in productivity and performance has been largely hidden or unnoticed, or even ignored by economists and others."
>
> > > ...And because this is "Integrity For Dummies," the ElRon bit is in the secret-sauce ~causal~ link.
>
> > > Ellen
>
> > Your fixation with your brother's involvement with Scientology aside,
>
> > the only thing the Michael C. Jensen, Steve Zaffron, Werner Erhard's
>
> > paper "A New Model of Integrity: An Actionable Pathway to Trust,
>
> > Productivity and Value" shares with L Ron Hubbard,  is the english
>
> > language.

... more especially the perversion and dumbing-down thereof.

> > You can  spend the rest of your internet life  trying to splice your
>
> > fixation and Erhard  together, if that is where you find the most
>
> > peace and happiness. Do it.
>
> > Now  calling  anyone who does not see things the-Ellen-way a "dummy"?
>
> > Isn't  that a  Scientology practice?  to fixate on  a perceived enemy
>
> > and ceaselessly act out  some kind of harsh "fair-game" thing on them?
>
> > You are the one stinking of with the "ghost-of-ElRon".
>
> She is auditioning for Karl Rove's "Crossroads GPS" super pac.
>
> Use logical fallacies, loose guilt by association fallacies, then declare yourself "Right" and anyone that disagrees with you stupid and or immoral.
>
> I think she actually believes her own propaganda.
> Then declare yourself in posesion of critical thinking skills that others don't have and stomp away.
>
> It is amazing how well lies work, though.
>
> 30% of Republican voters think Obama is a Muslim.
> Others think he's a Communist.

No overlap ...

> Some here thin Erhard and Zaffron or Michael Jensen are Scientologists.

Who, for example?

[Serena Nordstrup]

On Oct 31, 8:18 am, Kenny McCormick <kennymccormicksfa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > Nope.  There are lots of us who can spot a cult or cult-like organisation.  >
>
> "lots of us"? How many savvy, in-the-know  uses like you are there?
>
> > Everything?  Or just the mechanisms and manipulations of cults and wannabe cult leaders.  Not everything but enough about cults.  Yours is the typical hand-wringing, hystrionic, wah, wah, wah...
>
> "hand-wringing, hystrionic, wah, wah, wah" you know that describes you
> the local romanian intellectual hand-wringing, hystrionic, wah, wah,
> wah blowhard right?
>
> > Nope.  Just ordinary critical-type thinking and some modicum of information and curiosity.  You could learn to see how cults operate too.  It's not that hard.
>
> What are you "curious" about? I get the impression you have not
> experienced anything that could be called openness or "curiosity" in
> years.

So wind back the years and give us the evidence for Ellen's last
definitive display of openness or curiosity (as per your
"impression"). Then we can put an historical date on the openness or
curiosity or both.

Or not.

> >  The worst day outside a cult is better than the best inside, don't you know.
>
> Vague catchy sounding cliche's is all you have?

All?

[Kenny McCormick]

> So wind back the years and give us the evidence for Ellen's last
> definitive display of openness or curiosity (as per your
> "impression"). Then we can put an historical date on the openness or
> curiosity or both.
>
> Or not.

?????????????????????????????????????????????

> All?

???

[Caligari]

On Nov 1, 8:05 am, Kenny McCormick <kennymccormicksfa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > So wind back the years and give us the evidence for Ellen's last
> > definitive display of openness or curiosity (as per your
> > "impression"). Then we can put an historical date on the openness or
> > curiosity or both.

Well?

[elle...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:04:50 PM UTC-7, Tex wrote:

(snipped of blah, blah, and blah...)

> It is amazing how well lies work, though.
>
>
>
> 30% of Republican voters think Obama is a Muslim.
>
> Others think he's a Communist.

Therefore: What???

Therefore Werner's schtick didn't come from L. Ron Hubbard?

Therefore Werner didn't copy ~At Cause~ and ~At Effect~ from ElRon's cult?

Therefore there's no scientology inside est/Landmark/the Erhard, Jensen, Zaffron "Integrity" model?

Therefore Ellen's claim is comparable to the idiotic claims against Obama from the right wing?

What are you proposing here? That because some people are stupid, ill-informed, uneducated, covert racists, or nasty-assed political opportunists that, what, Erhard has no scientology connection?

>
>
>
> Some here thin Erhard and Zaffron or Michael Jensen are Scientologists.

Who thinks this?

>
>
>
> Confirmation bias indeed.
>
>
>
> This guy, Werner's Harvard friend, must be a commie, right?
>
> All those Harvard guys are Commies, right?
>
> Like Obama, that "Red diaper baby".
>
> Oh yeah, and Romney.

Unlike the manufactured, made-up, fear-mongering claims against Obama from the right, there is real evidence that Werner Erhard used and copied some of his material from L. Ron Hubbard -- much as you'd like to wish or bloviate it away. ~Being At Cause~ is the "non-victim" position, meaning you, yourself, all-by-your-little-self ~caused~ every (unfortunate) event that has happened to you since and including your birth. It's the scientology and, by proxy, the preferred Erhardian position.


Ellen

[Kenny McCormick]

On Nov 1, 3:34 pm, Caligari <enric.me...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 1, 8:05 am, Kenny McCormick <kennymccormicksfa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > So wind back the years and give us the evidence for Ellen's last
> > > definitive display of openness or curiosity (as per your
> > > "impression"). Then we can put an historical date on the openness or
> > > curiosity or both.
>
> Well?

???

[Caligari]

On Oct 30, 6:59 am, Kenny McCormick <kennymccormicksf...@gmail.com>
wrote:

So there's no evidence that Werner is smart?

;)

[Tex]

"Freedom, however, is not the last word. Freedom is only part of the story and half of the truth. Freedom is but the negative aspect of the whole phenomenon whose positive aspect is responsibleness. In fact, freedom is in danger of degenerating into mere arbitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsibleness. That is why I recommend that the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast be supplemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast"
-- Victor E. Frankl

[Kenny McCormick]

>  ~Being At Cause~ is the "non-victim" position, meaning you, yourself, all-by-your-little-self ~caused~ every (unfortunate) event that has happened to you since and including your birth.  It's the scientology and, by proxy, the preferred Erhardian position.
>
> Ellen

~Responsibility~ was presented as an ~opportunity~ to choose to be
creative in how one looked at something for oneself (usually in a
~coaching~ ~conversation~ and most likely in a course room to a paying
customer/assistant or staff person (where there was ~shared~
~agreement~ that it was a ~coaching~ ~conversation~) and where a
person could ~choose~, for themselves, to re-look at how they
themselves previously defined something in the past or present or some
circumstance, and ~take-on~ for themselves now being newly
~responsible~ for some aspect of it or better yet, all of it, with an
expectation that it would be beneficial to do so.

It was also frequently presented that this idea of ~responsibility~
was only a point of view and was NOT REAL and NOT TRUE but simply a
point of view that if considered, might have some benefit to the
person practicing this point of view.

~Responsibility~ was not presented as some default, inherited, true,
blame, it's-all-your-doing dogma to be believed and now be burdened
with.

[Serena Nordstrup]

On Nov 3, 3:01 am, Kenny McCormick <kennymccormicksfa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

One can readily re-frame. What advantages does one gain by adding
~responsibility~ (as opposed to ~being at cause~) to the mix ?

[elle...@gmail.com]

Oh come on, "Tex."

You're not really comparing the very highly regarded words of Victor Frankl with those of Werner Erhard (L. Ron Hubbard).

And the responsibility to which Frankl refers has little to do with the perverted ~responsibility~ of the cults. (Except, for Kenny, of course, the English language.)


Ellen

[patrick]

On Monday, October 29, 2012 3:40:58 PM UTC-5, elle...@gmail.com wrote:

operation...............brain scientist

[Kenny McCormick]

> Oh come on, "Tex."
>
> You're not really comparing the very highly regarded words of Victor Frankl with those of Werner Erhard (L. Ron Hubbard).
>
> And the responsibility to which Frankl refers has little to do with the perverted ~responsibility~ of the cults. (Except, for Kenny, of course, the English language.)
>
> Ellen

Ellen, are you are so blinded by your grievance with your brothers
involvement with Scientology?

If you are saying the two definitions of responsibility have little
in common, can we assume that you have both definitions flat? What is
the definition of ~responsibility~ associated with Erhard that you
take issue with, and what is the definition of "responsibility"
associated Frankl that you do not take issue with, and specifically
how are the two so different?

[Kenny McCormick]

> One can readily re-frame. What advantages does one gain by adding ~responsibility~ (as opposed to ~being at cause~) to the mix ?

Yes, one can readily re-frame things in in alt.fan.landmark. What
advantages does one gain by mis-representing that the words,
associated with Erhard or L.E, ~being at cause~, ever were intended
to mean that "you, yourself, all-by-your-little-self ~caused~ every

(unfortunate) event that has happened to you since and including your

birth"?

[Tex]

the point, which will always allude you, is that before L Ron others were talking about responsibility.

Viktor Frankl, a victim of the Holocaust and the Nazi concentration camps, came away with a remarkably upbeat and proactive philosophy.
It very much reminds me of the est Training.
Werner Erhard never claimed to present any info as new or unique.

"When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves."
-- Viktor E. Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning

"Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms--to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way."
-- Viktor E. Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning

"The one thing you can't take away from me is the way I choose to respond to what you do to me. The last of one's freedoms is to choose one's attitude in any given circumstance."
-- Viktor E. Frankl
>
>
>
>
>
> Ellen

[Serena Nordstrup]

... allude to Ellen ?

> is that before L Ron others were talking about responsibility.
>
> Viktor Frankl, a victim of the Holocaust and the Nazi concentration camps, came away with a remarkably upbeat and proactive philosophy.
> It very much reminds me of the est Training.

Vikto Frankl went to prison, right.

> Werner Erhard never claimed to present any info as new or unique.

Jack Rosenberg (aka Erhard) once ~acknowledged~ L Ron Hubbard as a
~source~ or as an influence. Did Rosenberg ever let on that he paid
any attention to the ~opinions~ of jailbirds such as Frankl?

[Serena Nordstrup]

On Nov 4, 4:12 am, Kenny McCormick <kennymccormicksfac...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > One can readily re-frame. What advantages does one gain by adding ~responsibility~ (as opposed to ~being at cause~) to the mix ?
>
> Yes, one can readily re-frame things in in alt.fan.landmark.

Indeed, one can readily re-frame outside alt.fan.landmark.

> What
> advantages does one gain by mis-representing that the words,
> associated with Erhard or L.E,  ~being at cause~, ever were intended
> to mean that  "you, yourself, all-by-your-little-self ~caused~ every
> (unfortunate) event that has happened to you since and including your
> birth"?

You wrote:

> ~Responsibility~ was presented as an ~opportunity~ to choose to be
> creative in how one looked at something for oneself (usually in a
> ~coaching~ ~conversation~ and most likely in a course room to a paying
> customer/assistant or staff person (where there was ~shared~
> ~agreement~ that it was a ~coaching~ ~conversation~) and where a
> person could ~choose~, for themselves, to re-look at how they
> themselves previously defined something in the past or present or some
> circumstance, and ~take-on~ for themselves now being newly
> ~responsible~ for some aspect of it or better yet, all of it, with an
> expectation that it would be beneficial to do so.

So I'll ask again: What advantages does one gain by adding
~responsibility~ (as opposed to ~being at cause~) to the idea of re-
framing ?

[Kenny McCormick]

> Jack Rosenberg (aka Erhard) once ~acknowledged~ L Ron Hubbard as a
> ~source~ or as an influence. Did Rosenberg ever let on  that he paid
> any attention to the ~opinions~ of jailbirds such as Frankl?

Where and when did Werner Erhard ever specifically "~acknowledge~ L
Ron Hubbard as a ~source~"? Please provide a link. Thanks.

From time to time Victor Frankl's life and words were referenced and
quoted in W.E.A trainings and Forums in the 70's's and 80's. And you
had to be there to hear this. If you were not there one of the times
Frankl's words or life was referenced, you may never know for sure.

[Kenny McCormick]

> So I'll ask again: What advantages does one gain by adding ~responsibility~ (as opposed to ~being at cause~) to the idea of re- framing ?

You asked Tubby "where did Caligari and/or Nietzsche associate
~experience~ with the Subjective? " 56 times.

Shall alt.fan.landmark expect a similar default interrogation process
repeated 56 times for "~Responsibility~ as opposed to ~being at
cause~" as well? If yes, my response to all 56 interrogation points
will always be the same:

"f - - - off"

Or

"????????????????".

[Caligari]

On Oct 29, 12:40 pm, ellena...@gmail.com wrote:
> Can they really be this clueless?
>

> http://blogs.wsj.com/atwork/2012/10/12/how-integrity-can-save-your-co...
>
> Ellen

The essence of Werner's "Integrity" is obedience.

-- Caligari

[Kenny McCormick]

> The essence of Werner's "Integrity" is obedience.
>
>   -- Caligari

Your observation is insightful and very interesting. It is about an
individual choosing to be more obedient to one's own word than being
obedient to everything else people are obedient to like excuses and
lies and justifications for being dishonest and faking one's way
through life.I like the word "obedience", in this case, it has bite
and originality. Well said Caligari.

Integrity: Where Leadership Begins - A New Model of Integrity
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=983401

"Obedience to one's own word" and "honouring one's word", what is the
difference? And honouring one's own word is the essence of integrity
as presented in the above paper.

[Kenny McCormick]

"For an individual we distinguish integrity as a matter of that
person’s word being whole and complete, and for a group or
organizational entity as what is said by or on behalf of the group or
organization being whole and complete. In that context, we define
integrity for an individual, group, or organization as: Honoring one’s
word.

Oversimplifying somewhat, honoring your word as we define it means you
either keep your word (do what you said you would do and by the time
you said you would do it), or as soon as you know that you will not,
you say that you will not to those who were counting on your word and
clean up any mess caused by not keeping your word.

Honoring your word is also the route to creating whole and complete
social and working relationships. In addition, it provides an
actionable pathway to earning the trust of others."

[Caligari]

On Nov 4, 2:13 pm, Kenny McCormick <kennymccormicksfa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > The essence of Werner's "Integrity" is obedience.
>
> >   -- Caligari
>
> Your observation is insightful and very interesting. It is about an
> individual choosing to be more obedient to one's own word than being
> obedient to everything else people are obedient to like excuses and
> lies and justifications for being dishonest and faking one's way
> through life.I like the word "obedience", in this case, it has bite
> and originality. Well said Caligari.
>

> Integrity: Where Leadership Begins - A New Model of Integrityhttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=983401

>
> "Obedience to one's own word" and "honouring one's word", what is the
> difference?  And honouring one's own word is the essence of integrity
> as presented in the above paper.

Werner entreated participants in processes to "get off it", "let go",
"submit." If your looking for authorities to submit to or to be an
authority submitted to, this is an ideology for that.

-- Caligari

[Kenny McCormick]

> Werner entreated participants in processes to "get off it", "let go", "submit." If your looking for authorities to submit to or to be an authority submitted to, this is an ideology for that.
-- Caligari

>Werner entreated participants in processes to "get off it", "let go",

That is correct

> "submit."

When was the word "submit" ever used even once? I think you are
sneaking that shit in there to fatten up your little story.

> If your looking for authorities to submit to

Coaches invited/coached paying customers and participants to "get
off it" and "let go", to the processes, practices or exercises or
disciplines said paying customers and participants paid or enrolled
to participate in.

Coaches asked paying customers and participants to get involved in
things the way that was needed to deliver on what people expected from
the processes, practices or exercises or disciplines. People heard
that est was intense and it was why many people registered into it in
the first place. People did not think they were joining a knitting
circle.

Sports coaches make similar invitations of their star players who are
committed to achieving some extraordinary new level of performance
that is way outside of the players comfort level. Are those star
players looking for "authorities to submit to or to be an authority
submitted to"? Perhaps. Perhaps that is a model that is appropriate at
times.

The coach participant dynamic. There are so many examples of coaches
asking performers to "give it up" and "let go" and ask that
performers give more and ask performers to follow instructions for
the purpose of growth and development in some sport or art or
business. Parents also entreat young children running in all
directions to "submit" to their parenting in very strong terms.

One of qualities I associate with a good coach is that they be
unreasonable and ask for more and more and more and more of a
performer. When a coach stops asking for more, they are probably no
longer useful as a coach to the performer. People interested in being
coached enter into whatever arena they choose to enter and be as
involved as they want to be, until they no longer wish to do so, then,
like yourself, when they don't want to be involved anymore or do not
want to be coached anymore, they leave the setting and no longer ask
for the coaching.

[bentot]

Don't leave that baited statement (i.e., no question mark) hanging out
like that, ???serena???! Tell the rest of the event. What prison?
Where? Why was he imprisioned? And, by whom?

bentot

[Caligari]

On Nov 4, 3:47 pm, Kenny McCormick <kennymccormicksfa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > Werner entreated participants in processes to "get off it", "let go", "submit."  If your looking for authorities to submit to or to be an authority submitted to, this is an ideology for that.
>
>   -- Caligari
>
> >Werner entreated participants in processes to "get off it", "let go",
>
> That is correct
>
> >  "submit."
>
> When was the word "submit" ever used even once? I think you are
> sneaking that shit in there to fatten up your little story.

Surrender (synonym of submit)

http://thesaurus.com/browse/submit?s=t

====
Main Entry: submit  [suh b-mit] Show IPA
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: comply, endure
Synonyms: ...surrender, ...
====

Interview with Werner:

http://www.erhardseminarstraining.com/?page_id=935
====
This Is It – An Interview With Werner Erhard
New Sun Magazine

By Eliezer Sobel, December 1978

...
NS: The truth then is not consistent with our mind’s normal way of
viewing things or living life. I seem to live in past, present and
future, even if at some level I have intuited that’s not actually
what’s going on.

Werner: Nothing could be more important than acknowledging that,
because only by acknowledging that could you possibly transcend it.
Now all you need to do is surrender to that. See, if you’re trying to
beat the game…

...

NS: That is my next question, because the standard response to that is
“well what about all the problems with what is, what about all the
terrible things that are going on? How does transformation become
applicable to social reform?” Or is that irrelevant in the context of
this conversation?

Werner: No, It’s not irrelevant. It is totally relevant. I would say
that nothing is irrelevant in the context of this conversation…. If
the chair you are sitting in breaks and you begin to fix it as if it
was your tape recorder, it won’t work. You have to surrender to the
chair in order to fix it. That is to say, you’ve got to get that that
chair is that chair, that it is no other chair, that it isn’t the way
you want it to be, it isn’t the way you’d like it to be, it isn’t the
way it should be, it isn’t the way that everybody knows that it is. It
is the way it is and it is only that way, and to the degree that you
interact with the chair as it is, to that degree you can be effective
and work with the chair. The intervention of anything between you and
that chair that keeps you from knowing the chair as it is – including
your desire to change it, including your resistance to it, your
repulsion to it – anything that intervenes between you and the chair
makes you ineffective with the chair. So the true resolution of
anything has to begin with a surrender to the thing that you are going
to resolve. That is to say, you have to take it for exactly what it is
without the addition of anything, or the subtraction of anything. At
that point you can produce what are for most people miracles because
the thing is very complex to them. It is not itself. Its mediated by
their desires and repulsions and what they want and don’t want and all
that stuff.

So this thing about getting that “this is it” has a great deal to do
with correcting what is unworkable. If you’re coming to the chair as
it is, you’re going to be very effective in repairing the chair. But
if you come to the chair from your desire to change it, if you come to
the chair from your repulsion, from your evaluation that it’s bad,
then that’s between you and the chair. So the secret in any kind of
transfor¬mation, whether it be individual, social or universal, is to
come from it as it is, which is what surrender is, as distinct from
submission. You can submit to the broken chair: the chair’s broken and
that has primacy and you’re less than that, and so you just have to
put up with it. Putting up with it is totally different than
surrendering to it. I don’t like the word surrender a lot just because
it’s a problem in our culture. I’d rather say “as it is,” or this, or
thus, or whatever you like.
====

Werner led event, "Celebrating Your Relationships"

http://wernererhardandest.wordpress.com/tag/graduate-review/
====
Celebrating Your Relationships (Part 1)
...
Pleasure as an expression of love

...“When you allow yourself to let go completely, as if you’re falling
back freely into what I call a great blue void—it could be something
else for you—and you surrender into the experience, you might won­der
where you’re going to land. It’s frightening to let go, to fall out of
this reality and fall back into the mysterious.

“I want to tell you that when you stop holding on, when you allow
yourself to be in the experience now, when you stop checking it all
out, when you surrender and fall back, where you always land is right
here. But suddenly, when you’ve arrived here by letting go into your
experience, ‘here’ is a brand-new, sparkling, and brilliant place….
====

Laurence Platt on Werner:

http://www.laurenceplatt.com/wernererhard/standups.html
====
The first time I experienced it (it's not brief - it goes on for quite
a while) I knew immediately it was was an awesome exercise, a process
which, with laser‑like accuracy and simplicity, goes straight to the
heart of our resistance to following simple instructions. I mean
"following simple instructions" quite literally. But it can also be a
euphemism for surrendering to what works.
====

http://www.laurenceplatt.com/wernererhard/theonly3.html
====
...
In the seminar when the conversation turned to what could be done with
such an experience, I started trying on "Don't do anything with it!".
I started trying on "Don't try to change it.". I started trying on
"Don't avoid it.". I started trying on "Don't deny it.". I started
trying on "Don't resist it.". I started trying on "Go through it!" -
"it" being whatever I'd rather not be experiencing. I started trying
on surrendering to it. Deliberately. Intentionally.
...
====

[Serena Nordstrup]

On Nov 5, 5:59 am, Kenny McCormick <kennymccormicksfa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > Jack Rosenberg (aka Erhard) once ~acknowledged~ L Ron Hubbard as a
> > ~source~ or as an influence. Did Rosenberg ever let on  that he paid
> > any attention to the ~opinions~ of jailbirds such as Frankl?
>
> Where and when did Werner Erhard ever specifically  "~acknowledge~ L
> Ron Hubbard as a ~source~"?  Please provide a link. Thanks.

A popular theme. For example:

According to Erhard... "Erhard, a former encyclopedia salesman, became
interested in studying several spiritual disciplines such as Zen
Buddhism and L. Ron Hubbard's "Dianetics." According to Erhard, hist
studies in the early 1970s allowed him to gain a type of self-
awareness that he packaged into a controversial training program
[...]" Page 16 of John J Sosik's "Leading with character: Stories of
Valor and Virtue and the Principles they Teach" (2006) -
http://books.google.com/books?id=CYhLTIWTU9gC

Rosenberg's esteem for Hubbard: "Erhard considers L. Ron Hubbard a
genius, but decided to leave the Church of Scientology to establish
his own training." Page 81 of Lindsay and Carlson's "The terminal
generation (1976) - http://books.google.com/books?id=Lc8LgzEPrIAC

Others detect the influence too: "Many Scientologists claim that
Erhard stole ideas from L. Ron Hubbard, the creator of Scientology.
EST appears to be a mix of parts of Existentialism, Motivational
Training, Zen Buddhism, Hinduism, L. Ron Hubbard, Pop Psychology,
Showmanship, etc." Page 327 of Jack Knox's "How to Be an Entrepreneur
Without Going to Jail" (2006) - http://books.google.com/books?id=TTe4OKLOVGMC

Or: "In the late 1960s, Erhard studied Dianetics and Scientology. L.
Ron Hubbard became a significant influence. [...]" Page 126 of Robert
Carroll's "The Skeptic's Dictionary:
A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous
Delusions" (2003) - http://books.google.com/books?id=6FPqDFx40vYC

See also WW Bartley, and Steven Pressman...

> From time to time  Victor Frankl's life and words were referenced and
> quoted in W.E.A trainings and Forums in the 70's's and 80's. And you
> had to be there to hear this. If you were not there one of the times
> Frankl's words or life was referenced, you may never know for sure.

Right. You have no independent evidence for these assertions?

[Serena Nordstrup]

On Nov 5, 6:21 pm, bentot <bentot1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 02:07:19 -0800 (PST), Serena Nordstrup
>

Tex already gave you the summary: "the Nazi concentration camps".
Specifically, prison-camps at Theresienstadt, Auschwitz, Dachau and
Tuerckheim, 1942 to 1945. Perhaps we can guess the sort of crime for
which he became one of Tex's despised ex-cons...

[Serena Nordstrup]

On Nov 5, 6:16 am, Kenny McCormick <kennymccormicksfa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > So I'll ask again: What advantages does one gain by adding ~responsibility~ (as opposed to ~being at cause~) to the idea of re- framing ?
>
> You asked Tubby "where did Caligari and/or Nietzsche associate
> ~experience~ with the Subjective? " 56 times.

My good friend Bruno (Tubby) -- a man of his ~word~ -- undertook to
give me an answer. Like a good ~coach~, I remind him of his
~commitment~ from time to time.

> Shall alt.fan.landmark expect a similar default interrogation process
> repeated 56 times for "~Responsibility~ as opposed to ~being at
> cause~"  as well? If yes, my response  to all 56 interrogation points
> will always be the same:
>
>  "f - - - off"
>
> Or
>
> "????????????????".

Really? Which of your two separate proposed responses demonstrates
better your willingness to discuss the topic of ~responsibility~ and
your engagement with the subject in the context of rosenbergism?

You've responded to my post, but you have omitted to address my
question. So here once again:

You wrote:

> ~Responsibility~ was presented as an ~opportunity~ to choose to be
> creative in how one looked at something for oneself (usually in a
> ~coaching~ ~conversation~ and most likely in a course room to a paying
> customer/assistant or staff person (where there was ~shared~
> ~agreement~ that it was a ~coaching~ ~conversation~) and where a
> person could ~choose~, for themselves, to re-look at how they
> themselves previously defined something in the past or present or some
> circumstance, and ~take-on~ for themselves now being newly
> ~responsible~ for some aspect of it or better yet, all of it, with an
> expectation that it would be beneficial to do so.

In the light of what you have stated, what advantages does one gain by

[Kenny McCormick]

???????????????

[Kenny McCormick]

> > From time to time  Victor Frankl's life and words were referenced and
> > quoted in W.E.A trainings and Forums in the 70's's and 80's. And you
> > had to be there to hear this. If you were not there one of the times
> > Frankl's words or life was referenced, you may never know for sure.
>
> Right. You have no independent evidence for these assertions?

Correct.

[Kenny McCormick]

This is about the word "submit".

CALIGARI SAID: "Werner entreated participants in processes to "get

off it", "let go","submit." If your looking for authorities to submit
to or to be an authority submitted to, this is an ideology for that."

YOU QUOTED W.E SAYING: "So the secret in any kind of transformation,

whether it be individual, social or universal, is to come from it as
it is, which is what surrender is, as distinct from submission. You
can submit to the broken chair: the chair’s broken and that has
primacy and you’re less than that, and so you just have to put up with
it. Putting up with it is totally different than surrendering to it. I
don’t like the word surrender a lot just because it’s a problem in our
culture. I’d rather say “as it is,” or this, or thus, or whatever you
like."

There is no relationship between what you said and what W.E Said.

"Submit" or "submitting to authorities was never promoted in est or
by W.E. W.E never "entreated participants in processes to ,"submit."
You are sneaking that BS in to fatten up your slimy little story.

[tubby]

On Nov 6, 12:41 am, Kenny McCormick <kennymccormicksfa...@gmail.com>

Hey Kenny,

You have stirred the pigeons from their stupor.

I and many others are following your conversation with the Muse and
the Passionate one
with great interest.

Did the Muse really haunt me 56 times on the topic Subjectivity???

" My good friend Bruno (Tubby) -- a man of his ~word~ -- undertook to
> > give me an answer. Like a good ~coach~, I remind him of his
> > ~commitment~ from time to time.

You were a shit house Coach Serena not a good one as you claim.
When I asked for help and support you ignored my requests .

I could have had a shot at the Titles but you blew my chances in
looking good.


Thanks Kenny for bringing more fresh air to the conversation.

You may have noted that the Muse communicates in heavenly
surroundings and mere mortals are not part
of her entourage.

Your lustful erotic request of the Muse was most apt.

Regards Bruno

[Serena Nordstrup]

On Nov 6, 2:58 am, Kenny McCormick <kennymccormicksfa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> This is about the word "submit".
>
> CALIGARI  SAID:  "Werner entreated participants in processes to "get
> off it", "let go","submit."  If your looking for authorities to submit
> to or to be an authority submitted to, this is an ideology for that."
>
> YOU QUOTED W.E SAYING: "So the secret in any kind of transformation,
> whether it be individual, social or universal, is to come from it as
> it is, which is what surrender is, as distinct from submission. You
> can submit to the broken chair: the chair’s broken and that has
> primacy and you’re less than that, and so you just have to put up with
> it. Putting up with it is totally different than surrendering to it. I
> don’t like the word surrender a lot just because it’s a problem in our
> culture. I’d rather say “as it is,” or this, or thus, or whatever you
> like."
>
> There is no relationship between what you said and what W.E Said.

And Jack Rosenberg never spoke a word of English.

> "Submit" or "submitting to authorities  was never promoted  in est or
> by W.E.  W.E never "entreated participants in processes to ,"submit."
> You are sneaking that BS in to fatten up your slimy little story.

Some people draw ~distinctions~, some people notice that the emperor
doesn't wear them.

[Serena Nordstrup]

Who? How many?

> are following your conversation with the Muse and
> the Passionate one
> with great interest.
>
> Did the Muse really haunt me 56 times on the topic  Subjectivity???
>
> " My good friend Bruno (Tubby) -- a man of his ~word~ -- undertook to
>
> > > give me an answer. Like a good ~coach~, I remind him of his
> > > ~commitment~ from time to time.
>
> You were a shit house Coach Serena not a good one as you claim.

I make no claims of good ~coaching~. I merely compared myself in one
small respect to a good ~coach~.

> When I asked for help and support you ignored my requests .

Sometimes I have a low toerance of evasivness.

> I could have had a shot at the Titles but you blew my chances in
> looking good.

So who do you regard as ~at cause~ there?

[Serena Nordstrup]

On Nov 6, 2:41 am, Kenny McCormick <kennymccormicksfa...@gmail.com>

Yeah, all that tilde-laden jargon can look opaque -- even to those who
write it . So I'll do you a favor: I'll paraphrase. You wrote that
~responsibility~ gets redefined such that it may look like what I
would call (neutrally) re-framing, but that taking on new
~responsibility~ might prove beneficial. Hence my question: what
advantages does one gain by adding more ~responsibility~ (as opposed

[tubby]

I haven't looked at alt Landmark for a while however I was surprised
that I saw 767 or there about people that had accessed the site.
I think Kenny brought all of your friends out of their torpor.

>
> > are following your conversation with the Muse and
> > the Passionate one
> > with great interest.
>
> > Did the Muse really haunt me 56 times on the topic  Subjectivity???
>
> > " My good friend Bruno (Tubby) -- a man of his ~word~ -- undertook to
>
> > > > give me an answer. Like a good ~coach~, I remind him of his
> > > > ~commitment~ from time to time.
>
> > You were a shit house Coach Serena not a good one as you claim.
>
> I make no claims of good ~coaching~. I merely compared myself in one
> small respect to a good ~coach~.

Nevertheless you were a shit house Coach. That 's on record.

>
> > When I asked for help and support you ignored my requests .
>

> Sometimes I have a low tolerance of evasiveness.


Okay whatever you say.

>
> > I could have had a shot at the Titles but you blew my chances in
> > looking good.
>
> So who do you regard as ~at cause~ there?

Mea Culpa Muse.

You are just tooooo sophisticated and noble for the mortal
crowd. Time to move on.

Cheers

[Kenny McCormick]

> Yeah, all that tilde-laden jargon can look opaque -- even to those who
> write it . So I'll do you a favor: I'll paraphrase. You wrote that
> ~responsibility~ gets redefined such that it may look like what I
> would call (neutrally) re-framing, but that taking on new
> ~responsibility~ might prove beneficial. Hence my question: what
> advantages does one gain by adding more ~responsibility~ (as opposed
> to ~being at cause~) to the idea of re- framing ?

~???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????~

[Kenny McCormick]

> And Jack Rosenberg never spoke a word of English.

You're living in some kind of magical faery tale land inhabited with
all kinds of fantastic characters.

> Some people draw ~distinctions~, some people notice that the emperor doesn't wear them.

"Some people draw ~distinctions~", and "some people" have brilliant
opinions about other people's clothes.

[tubby]

On Nov 7, 1:15 am, Kenny McCormick <kennymccormicksfa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Hey Serena where are you?????
Come out behind that rock that you and your Muses are hiding behind.
Kenny is asking for more support and as you claim to be a "good Coach"
then start Coaching rather than leaving the scene!!!!!!!!!!


yOUR BOYFRIEND DOWN SOUTH MISSES YOUR ASTUTE IN DEPTH QUESTIONING!!!!

[Serena Nordstrup]

And what baseline does that compare with?

> I think Kenny brought all of your friends out of their torpor.

Conspiracy-aspersion number 83...

> > > are following your conversation with the Muse and
> > > the Passionate one
> > > with great interest.
>
> > > Did the Muse really haunt me 56 times on the topic  Subjectivity???
>
> > > " My good friend Bruno (Tubby) -- a man of his ~word~ -- undertook to
>
> > > > > give me an answer. Like a good ~coach~, I remind him of his
> > > > > ~commitment~ from time to time.
>
> > > You were a shit house Coach Serena not a good one as you claim.
>
> > I make no claims of good ~coaching~. I merely compared myself in one
> > small respect to a good ~coach~.
>
> Nevertheless you were a shit house Coach.

No magick in inadvertant ~coaching~, then...

> That 's on record.

Where? Give us an URL !

[Serena Nordstrup]

On Nov 7, 3:15 am, Kenny McCormick <kennymccormicksfa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Which part of the question do you have trouble addressing, Kenny? --

The question (for reference) reads:

[Serena Nordstrup]

On Nov 17, 3:23 am, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 1:15 am, Kenny McCormick <kennymccormicksfa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > Yeah, all that tilde-laden jargon can look opaque -- even to those who
> > > write it . So I'll do you a favor: I'll paraphrase. You wrote that
> > > ~responsibility~ gets redefined such that it may look like what I
> > > would call (neutrally) re-framing, but that taking on new
> > > ~responsibility~ might prove beneficial. Hence my question: what
> > > advantages does one gain by adding more ~responsibility~ (as opposed
> > > to ~being at cause~) to the idea of re- framing ?
>
> > ~???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????~
>
> Hey Serena  where are you?????
> Come out behind that rock that you and your Muses are hiding behind.
> Kenny is asking for more support and as you claim to be a "good Coach"

where?

> then start Coaching rather than leaving the scene!!!!!!!!!!
>
> yOUR BOYFRIEND DOWN SOUTH MISSES YOUR ASTUTE IN DEPTH QUESTIONING!!!!

I thought of you a lot during the eclipse, Bruno. Did you undertake
the pilgrimage to Cairns for the ~experience~ of the eclipse last
week?

[Serena Nordstrup]

On Nov 7, 3:35 am, Kenny McCormick <kennymccormicksfa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > And Jack Rosenberg never spoke a word of English.
>
> You're living in some kind of magical faery tale land

A magical and wonderful faery-tale land indeed.

> inhabited with
> all kinds of fantastic characters.

Such as?

> > Some people draw ~distinctions~, some people notice that the emperor doesn't wear them.
>
> "Some people draw ~distinctions~", and "some people" have brilliant
> opinions about other people's clothes.

How true. How irrelevant.

[tubby]

Oh thank you for asking fair Serena.
No I did not know it was even happening till a Technician came to see
me and told me a partial Eclipse
was taking place that morning in Melbourne. I did not have the proper
glasses so I could not look at it.

However my daughter did fly up to Cairns and had a great time/ She met
lots of interesting people
and enjoyed her stay.

I'm glad to hear you are thinking of me sometimes so my offer to buy
you a drink is once again open.

I just want to see what you look like when you ask your astute deep
and meaningful questions.

Is that too much to ask.

I will bring along my wife of course for protection if you don't mind.

cheers

[Serena Nordstrup]

You passed on the ~possibility~ of ~experiencing~ an eclipse ?

You passed on the ~possibility~ of ~experiencing~ something merely
because you lacked "the proper glasses" ?

You credited the need for "the proper glasses" and placed that above
direct ~experience~?

You passed on the ~possibility~ of ~experiencing~ pain and blindness,
all because of some negativity about the properness of glasses?

Shame on you, Bruno! Always henceforward I shall ~experience~ doubt
when you preach the value of direct ~experience~ ....

> However my daughter did fly up to Cairns and had a great time/ She met
> lots of interesting people
> and enjoyed her stay.
>
> I'm glad to hear you are thinking of me sometimes so my offer to buy
> you a drink is once again open.
>
> I just want to see what you look like when you ask your astute  deep
> and meaningful questions.
>
> Is that too much to ask.

Mere distraction from the astuteness, depth, and meaningfulosity.

> I will bring along my wife of course for protection if you don't mind.

She who first labeled me slippery and slimy? -- No problemo!

[tubby]

Not at all my fair Muse.
Having seen past eclipses of the Sun I was not interested in this
particular one.
Pretty simple explanation.

>
> > However my daughter did fly up to Cairns and had a great time/ She met
> > lots of interesting people
> > and enjoyed her stay.
>
> > I'm glad to hear you are thinking of me sometimes so my offer to buy
> > you a drink is once again open.
>
> > I just want to see what you look like when you ask your astute  deep
> > and meaningful questions.
>
> > Is that too much to ask.
>
> Mere distraction from the astuteness, depth, and meaningfulosity.
>
> > I will bring along my wife of course for protection if you don't mind.
>
> She who first labeled me slippery and slimy? -- No problemo!

And don't forget " Snaky"" !!!!!!


cheers

[Serena Nordstrup]

"Not interested" ! -- Do you regard "not interested" as sufficient
excuse for forgoing the ~possibility~ of ~experiencing~ pain and
blindness? You who admire and advocate a sense of adventure?

> Pretty simple explanation.
>
>
>
> > > However my daughter did fly up to Cairns and had a great time/ She met
> > > lots of interesting people
> > > and enjoyed her stay.
>
> > > I'm glad to hear you are thinking of me sometimes so my offer to buy
> > > you a drink is once again open.
>
> > > I just want to see what you look like when you ask your astute  deep
> > > and meaningful questions.
>
> > > Is that too much to ask.
>
> > Mere distraction from the astuteness, depth, and meaningfulosity.
>
> > > I will bring along my wife of course for protection if you don't mind.
>
> > She who first labeled me slippery and slimy? -- No problemo!
>
> And don't forget  " Snaky"" !!!!!!

That one must have slithered out of my memory.

What had I done to merit such an honorable description? Did I exhibit
the wisdom of serpents?

[tubby]

Good point my fair Muse.

I don't think so. I believe it was not used in such a classical way as
you purport.

Cheers

[Serena Nordstrup]

On Nov 24, 12:38 am, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 22, 10:05 pm, Serena Nordstrup <s_nordst...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 20, 8:43 pm, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 19, 8:27 pm, Serena Nordstrup <s_nordst...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 19 Nov, 00:50, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 18, 6:18 pm, Serena Nordstrup <s_nordst...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 17, 3:23 am, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > > > > I will bring along my wife of course for protection if you don't mind.
>
> > > > She who first labeled me slippery and slimy? -- No problemo!
>
> > > And don't forget  " Snaky"" !!!!!!
>
> > That one must have slithered out of my memory.
>
> > What had I done to merit such an honorable description?  Did I exhibit
> > the wisdom of serpents?
>
> Good point my fair Muse.
>
> I don't think so. I believe it was not used in such a classical way as
> you purport.

I just asked the question.

I just checked the archives. I can find no previous description of
myself as "snaky" or "snakey". -- Perhaps that explains my lack of
memory of the case.

[tubby]

I think she may have said "snake"
I do remember it fair Serena because I was surprised at her reaction.
It was a few years ago.
But never mind she is just protecting her wee husband from serpentine
poison.

cheers

[Serena Nordstrup]

On Nov 25, 11:46 pm, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 6:29 pm, Serena Nordstrup <s_nordst...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 24, 12:38 am, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 22, 10:05 pm, Serena Nordstrup <s_nordst...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 20, 8:43 pm, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 19, 8:27 pm, Serena Nordstrup <s_nordst...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 19 Nov, 00:50, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 18, 6:18 pm, Serena Nordstrup <s_nordst...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Nov 17, 3:23 am, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  <snip>
>
> > > > > > > I will bring along my wife of course for protection if you don't mind.
>
> > > > > > She who first labeled me slippery and slimy? -- No problemo!
>
> > > > > And don't forget  " Snaky"" !!!!!!
>
> > > > That one must have slithered out of my memory.
>
> > > > What had I done to merit such an honorable description?  Did I exhibit
> > > > the wisdom of serpents?
>
> > > Good point my fair Muse.
>
> > > I don't think so. I believe it was not used in such a classical way as
> > > you purport.
>
> > I just asked the question.
>
> > I just checked the archives. I can find no previous description of
> > myself as "snaky" or "snakey". -- Perhaps that explains my lack of
> > memory of the case.
>
> I think she may  have said "snake"

So why didn't you say so, rather than making up ~stories~ about
snakiness ?

Here:

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.landmark/msg/2e635e4708d0156b

which includes:

"My wife exclaimed you were a "venomous snake" after your reply to
the
Marston poem. ( Without any prompting from me> I just showed her your
reply above) "

> I do remember it fair Serena because I was surprised at her reaction.
> It was a few years ago.

October 2007. What a memory for insults!

> But never mind she is just protecting her wee husband from serpentine
> poison.

... as she sees it, no doubt. She's never suggested that hanging out
in alt.fan.landmark may put you in danger?