Anonymity
Tin Man
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
The purpose of this essay is to argue that the claim, "I will not
accept your argument because you do not use your real name," is an
informal fallacy - an improper way of reasoning.
Professional logicians recognize two necessary and jointly sufficient
conditions for a sound argument; (1) The argument is valid, and (2)
the premises are true. Thus, there are two and only two ways to refute
an argument; (1) demonstrate that the argument is invalid, or (2)
demonstrate that at least one of the premises is false. This can be
verified by looking in any introductory logic book.
Validity
Arguments are valid or invalid in virtue of their form. The study of
logic is the study of the forms that arguments may take and the ways
of determining which forms are those of valid arguments and which
forms are those of invalid arguments. The paradigm example of a valid
argument is called modus ponens; it has the following form:
1a) If P then Q
1b) P
1c) Therefore, Q
In this case, the letters stand for sentences. For example, let P =
"Henry is an elephant," and let Q = "Henry is a mammal." We get:
2a) If Henry is an elephant, then Henry is a mammal.
2b) Henry is an elephant.
2c) Therefore, Henry is a mammal.
It is the defining characteristic of a valid argument that, if the
premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. A valid argument
may still have false premises, but if the premises are true then for
the conclusion to be false would be a contradiction. Let us change Q
to mean "Henry is a reptile." We get:
3a) If Henry is an elephant, then Henry is a reptile.
3b) Henry is an elephant.
3c) Therefore, Henry is a reptile.
In this example, 3a is false. Yet, it is still the case that IF 3a
were true THEN 3c would also have to be true. It would be a logical
contradiction to state that, "If Henry is an elephant, then Henry is a
reptile; Henry is an elephant; and Henry is not a reptile." Thus, this
argument is still valid. In much popular lay-discussion it is common
for people to use "validity" as synonymous with "soundness" as
meaning, "a good argument whereby the conclusion is proved true." But
this is not the logicians' technical definition of the terms.
Arguments are proved invalid by means of a counter-example. The
qualities of a valid counter example are; (1) the argument has the
same form as the argument one is raising objections against; (2) in
the counter-example it is the case that even if all of the premises
were true, the conclusion could still be false. From these it is
inferred that in the original argument, even if all of the premises
are true it is possible for the conclusion to be false; that is, truth
of the premises in original argument does not prove the truth of the
conclusion in that argument. In other words, believing all of the
premises to be true and the conclusion to be false does not generate a
logical contradiction.
Since counter examples focus entirely on the form of the argument,
rather than the content of the premises, the identity of the person
making the original argument is of no relevance.
Truth
Propositions are true or false; and their truth or falsity are
determined by their content. One thing it is important to stress is
that only propositions - statements - are capable of being true or
false. Thus, Tarsky's definition of truth, illustrated by the
statement "'Snow is white' is true if and only if snow is white," is
not as trivial as it may seem at first glance. "Snow is white"
(contained within quotes in the original illustration) refers to a
proposition - the sentence "Snow is white." The phrase "snow is white"
which is outside the quotes in the original illustration refers to the
actual wet, white, cold stuff that falls from the sky in winter. The
sentence "snow is white" is true if and only if the wet, white, cold
stuff that falls from the sky in winter is actually white.
The Anonymous Fallacy would have us add to Tarsky's definition of
truth a condition that the identity of the person who wrote or spoke
the statement is known. Thus, "Snow is white" is true if and only if
(1) snow is white, and (2) the identity of the person making the claim
"snow is white" is known. Yet, clearly, this is not the case. Take,
for example, the proposition, "I use the anonymous name Phil in this
article." Here, the reader does not know my identity. And, yet, the
proposition is clearly true. Or take, for example, the proposition,
"There is a hundred dollars buried at the base of the tree at the end
of Pine Street," written on a piece of paper flying through the wind.
You find this paper; it does not follow from the fact that the paper
is unsigned that the proposition is false. Neither does determining
whether the proposition is true or false depend on identifying the
author - it can be verified by going to the tree at the end of Pine
Street and seeing if there is any money buried there.
There are cases in which the anonymity of an author does provide good
reason to question the truth of a premises. These are cases where the
argument contains a self-referring premise that can not be verified
without knowing the identity of the claimant. It is still the case
that the truth of the premise does not depend on our knowing the
identity of the author, only verifying its truth or falsity depends on
that information. For example, if I were to say, "I saw Jim commit the
murders," it would be reasonable to hold my anonymity against me.
Others could not disprove my statement unless they knew who I was (so
they can start rounding up witnesses to the fact I was nowhere near
the location when the murders took place). The proposition, "I
sometimes use the anonymous name Phil in my posts" is not that kind of
proposition. One can round up witnesses for and against this claim
without knowing who I really am.
Conclusion
As another example to illustrate my point, I offer this essay. I have
attempted to show that the claim, "I will not accept your argument
because you do not use your real name," is an informal fallacy.
Whether or not I have succeeded is independent of anybody knowing who
I really am.
Sean
Phil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Last modified: 23 Jan 1998
Author: Phil
Comments: gala...@stack.nl
"Tin Man" <tinmanh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42b68019.03102...@posting.google.com...
> The Anonymous Fallacy
>
Posted with permission I presume? Or a plain and simply breach of copyright?
Have you got your nyms sorted yet? Keep digging, moles live underground all
their lives. No skin off my nose.
Next.........
MICHAEL
"Sean" <lifeswha...@earth.org> wrote in message
news:loKdnSYvgcl...@inspired.net.au...
> http://www.stack.nl/~galactus/remailers/fallacy.html
>
> Phil
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----
>
> Last modified: 23 Jan 1998
> Author: Phil
> Comments: gala...@stack.nl
>
> "Tin Man" <tinmanh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:42b68019.03102...@posting.google.com...
> > The Anonymous Fallacy
> >
>
>
> Posted with permission I presume? Or a plain and simply breach of
copyright?
>
> Have you got your nyms sorted yet? Keep digging, moles live underground
all
> their lives. No skin off my nose.
>
> Next.........
The argument forgets to mention ACCOUNTABILITY
That is the core fo the issue. People who are accountable provide us with
more stable and rational viewpoints, as a general rule. Responsable =
Response Able.
Love
Michael
>
>
cher
Well that's the point of the thing, isn't it? Anonymous posters seem to
abuse their entitlement of suffering through projection to the point
where they have slipped into an abusive pattern of posting on this
group. Ideas are no longer what matters, it's taking their pound of
flesh that brings them back here day after day. No harm no foul if no
one knows that they're behaving in such a way! It has turned this group,
like many others on usenet, into vacuums of abusive behavior. Like
children with no supervisision, the misbehaving has lost all boundaries
and repercussions. In short, the most uncivilized thing to be these days
appears to be an exmember of any path!
The strange thing is that if you put a name on your posts.... if you
take ownership of the things you say then you put something of who you
are there as well. It doesn't even have to be your real name, but a name
that you chose to share these feelings under, consistently. It's making
a connection of ownership between cause and effect, between the things
you say and do to others in your journey. I guess tinman just couldn't
figure that part of it out! All that tinman managed to do was go find
someone elses words and ideas to support his desire to keep things the
same!
cher
<wink>
cher
if the issues themselves are valid to begin with? See... who brings them
up... including former high initiates of Eckankar shouldn't matter if
the issues themselves aren't valid to begin with. But the point I was
making was that when one disassociates themself from the humanity of the
group they're posting to, they no longer deal with accountablity for
what they've said. There are no checks and balances for their behavior.
There is no sense of ownership in what they spread through posting.
Responsiblity is a bigger issue then what your name it, but a name
brings forth ownership of what is said. And that shifts how one treats
other beings. That part of humanity, of being civilized is long missing
on this group. It's easy to manipulate others intentions through
speculations but not so easy to accept ownership of our own. Intersting,
hey? :-)
Sean
"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3F99493A...@worldnet.att.net...
Sounds pretty "right" cher <g>
Accountability - what's that??
@aloha.net Rich
"Tin Man" <tinmanh...@yahoo.com> wrote
> The Anonymous Fallacy
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
>
> Introduction
> The purpose of this essay is to argue that the claim, "I will not
> accept your argument because you do not use your real name," is an
> informal fallacy - an improper way of reasoning.
And this is a strawman argument
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/straw.htm
since Eckists here don't say that.
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
arelurker
I think it works the other way. People who don't have to worry about
their Mother's being called or their wives or their children can express
their negative viewpoints about eckankar. And such viewpoints are
accountable to all those here who disagree. The name doesn't matter.
> >
> > Love
> >
> > Michael
>
> Well that's the point of the thing, isn't it? Anonymous posters seem to
> abuse their entitlement of suffering through projection to the point
> where they have slipped into an abusive pattern of posting on this
> group. Ideas are no longer what matters,
I'm an anonymous poster and I keep asking you in other threads to
support your claims and you refuse to.
it's taking their pound of
> flesh that brings them back here day after day. No harm no foul if no
> one knows that they're behaving in such a way!
Behaving what way? Offering alternative viewpoints about eckankar that
people can't get in eckankar.
It has turned this group,
> like many others on usenet, into vacuums of abusive behavior.
Cher honey... You need to look at your demeanor honey. I've been working
with you on this for some time. Your tone is shamed based and constant
barrage of put downs and insult towards those with whom you disagree.
You do it so much it is a fixation in your personality.
Like
> children with no supervisision, the misbehaving has lost all boundaries
> and repercussions. In short, the most uncivilized thing to be these days
> appears to be an exmember of any path!
Are you feelings hurt Cher?
>
> The strange thing is that if you put a name on your posts.... if you
> take ownership of the things you say then you put something of who you
> are there as well.
Yeah a way for nut case eckists to track your family members down and
call them. Who wants that?
It doesn't even have to be your real name, but a name
> that you chose to share these feelings under, consistently. It's making
> a connection of ownership between cause and effect, between the things
> you say and do to others in your journey. I guess tinman just couldn't
> figure that part of it out! All that tinman managed to do was go find
> someone elses words and ideas to support his desire to keep things the
> same!
The point stands, who is making the argument does not matter one at all
to the strength or weakness of the argument. That some of you eckists
can't make a strong argument and can't intimidate people from posting
here by getting personal information on them and making threats is frustrating.
Lurk
cher
block sender lists. <smile>
Excuse me? Are you saying that you should be able to say whatever and
treat people in whatever manner you chose without respect for others and
not be held accountable for your actions and choices? Isn't that rather
juvenille in scope? Being anonymous gives you all this power? The power
to tell people who disagree with you that they are cult puppies? That
they can't think for themselves? No.... the game is no longer being
played without boudaries. Period. It's a new day. If you are afraid for
your mother or children to see what you do or say here, then that is on
your heart.... not anyone elses.
> > >
> > > Love
> > >
> > > Michael
> >
> > Well that's the point of the thing, isn't it? Anonymous posters seem to
> > abuse their entitlement of suffering through projection to the point
> > where they have slipped into an abusive pattern of posting on this
> > group. Ideas are no longer what matters,
>
> I'm an anonymous poster and I keep asking you in other threads to
> support your claims and you refuse to.
Excuse me? The point here is about how posting anonymously can open the
door to projecting an entitlement of suffering onto the person you're
posting to. Would you like to say something about this?
> it's taking their pound of
> > flesh that brings them back here day after day. No harm no foul if no
> > one knows that they're behaving in such a way!
>
> Behaving what way? Offering alternative viewpoints about eckankar that
> people can't get in eckankar.
I was going to answer this point, til I read the next statement you made
below. I would like to point out that this is in my opinion an example
of exactly what I'm talking about! What you share here has nothing to do
with your alternative viewpoints on Eckankar! This has to do with your
need to abuse people verbally.
> It has turned this group,
> > like many others on usenet, into vacuums of abusive behavior.
>
> Cher honey... You need to look at your demeanor honey. I've been working
> with you on this for some time. Your tone is shamed based and constant
> barrage of put downs and insult towards those with whom you disagree.
> You do it so much it is a fixation in your personality.
So now show me what is there here about Eckankar that you wanted to
discuss? Perhaps if we decide to change the subject to psychology then I
might point out your need to put other people down and demonize them to
a lower status then you in need of your help? That's an important
symptom, if that's what you'd like to look at!
> Like
> > children with no supervisision, the misbehaving has lost all boundaries
> > and repercussions. In short, the most uncivilized thing to be these days
> > appears to be an exmember of any path!
>
> Are you feelings hurt Cher?
Why do you need me to feel hurt, lurk? What I've shared is human well
being in action. Do you see this as injured in some way? Why?
> >
> > The strange thing is that if you put a name on your posts.... if you
> > take ownership of the things you say then you put something of who you
> > are there as well.
>
> Yeah a way for nut case eckists to track your family members down and
> call them. Who wants that?
Gee... it went from one phone call to alfie via his mother to this?
Isn't this rather irresponsible of you to try to pass this off as common
place on this group? I guess you're still prone to screaming fire in a
packed theatre!
> It doesn't even have to be your real name, but a name
> > that you chose to share these feelings under, consistently. It's making
> > a connection of ownership between cause and effect, between the things
> > you say and do to others in your journey. I guess tinman just couldn't
> > figure that part of it out! All that tinman managed to do was go find
> > someone elses words and ideas to support his desire to keep things the
> > same!
>
> The point stands, who is making the argument does not matter one at all
> to the strength or weakness of the argument. That some of you eckists
> can't make a strong argument and can't intimidate people from posting
> here by getting personal information on them and making threats is frustrating.
Gee... but you seem to favor the former high initiate over the ECKist on
this group as a source of credibility. <sigh> If an argument is strong,
then why do you need anticultic propoganda to attack the character of
those who disagree with you? Why do you need to dehumanize those who
disagree with you? This only proves a lack of accountability in such
instances. There is no incentive to accept responsibility for ones
behavior once anonymity is abused. Where are the checks and balances for
that person? There is the block sender list. That of course is seen as
censoring others instead of a healthy use of boundaries. That's a
frightening thought... that this group has gone that far down the pipes.
> Lurk
Tin Man
Once again the magnificent Lurk hits the nail right on the head. The
Usual Suspects have long ago given up making reasonable responses to
eckankar criticism and are well into their strategy of header tracking
and intimidation. When you have no credible defense, always attack the
messenger. It's an ages old strategy that generally backfires. It
backfired on Paul Twitchell when he attacked Kirpal Singh, it
backfired on Darwin Gross when he pointed the finger at David Lane,
and it is backfiring right now on Harold Klemp so his tawdry and
shameless blaming and dismissal of Ford Johnson.
When will you eckists learn? Clean up eckankar and all these critics
go away. Keep attacking, keep deceiving and keep perpetuating fraud on
the unsuspecting and the sound of criticism will grow so loud you
won't be able to hear yourself Hu.
Sam
Now, I've had my battles with Cher in this dance and we both have called
each other names here due to misunderstanding - heck everybody here has -,
but Lurk calling Cher here "C" word with such vindictiveness and in such
repetition is outrageous. That is TOTALLY uncalled for and controlling. It
serves NOBODY any good at a.r.e., or anywhere for that matter. It is about a
LOW as LOW as can get. When I talked with Cher on the phone, she was polite,
full of fun and laughter. We enjoyed talking to one another person to
person. I've talked with Sean also. David Soul Words as well. If only lurk
had the guts to post his real name like that and take all POV into the
equation!!!!!
I may not have much a life due to my current struggles, but DAMN it, I say,
have compassion for another human being despite my own problems! Lurk is not
reaching out to anybody!
What it really all boils down to is STATES OF CONSCIOUSNESS. From day to day
these are never quite the same. It is, however progressive that we are
trying to achieve of SOUL's incredible imagination and purity of SPIRIT and
LOVE, no matter how hard a blow we've been dealt with in life.
If I'd ever find myself out on the street begging for food, I'd at least
hope that any person who should see me would say: Sam, despite your
dillemnas, we still love you.
LOVE
SAM
Tin Man wrote in message
<42b68019.03102...@posting.google.com>...
MICHAEL
gangbanged by bikies, etc. you seemed to think this was fine... He said it
many times, and obviously he said it vindictively...
Why the double standard now?
Love
Michael
"Sam" <S...@here.ne.t> wrote in message
news:jyJmb.644$JN....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
Sharon2000
> Tin Man:
> Now, I've had my battles with Cher in this dance and we both have called
> each other names here due to misunderstanding - heck everybody here has
> -, but Lurk calling Cher here "C" word with such vindictiveness and in
> such repetition is outrageous. That is TOTALLY uncalled for and
> controlling. It serves NOBODY any good at a.r.e., or anywhere for that
> matter. It is about a LOW as LOW as can get. When I talked with Cher on
> the phone, she was polite, full of fun and laughter. We enjoyed talking
> to one another person to person. I've talked with Sean also. David Soul
> Words as well. If only lurk had the guts to post his real name like that
> and take all POV into the equation!!!!!
> I may not have much a life due to my current struggles, but DAMN it, I
> say, have compassion for another human being despite my own problems!
> Lurk is not reaching out to anybody!
>
> What it really all boils down to is STATES OF CONSCIOUSNESS. From day to
> day these are never quite the same. It is, however progressive that we
> are trying to achieve of SOUL's incredible imagination and purity of
> SPIRIT and LOVE, no matter how hard a blow we've been dealt with in life.
>
> If I'd ever find myself out on the street begging for food, I'd at least
> hope that any person who should see me would say: Sam, despite your
> dillemnas, we still love you.
>
> LOVE
> SAM
Fuck off, asswipe. 8o)
--
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT ECKANKAR, SEE:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/links
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/files
@aloha.net Rich
Gary Fike wrote in message
> The
> Usual Suspects have long ago given up making reasonable responses to
> eckankar criticism
Just unreasonable criticism.
> and are well into their strategy of header tracking
> and intimidation. When you have no credible defense, always attack the
> messenger.
Revealing their identity and exemplfying with their own words and
behavior is not an attack stategy. For these truths to intimidates
them, they must feel guilty or afraid of accountability for their
actions. It's just the quickest way of providing real information for
those that may not yet be able to see thru the speciousness of who they
are really dealing with.
Cultbuster
Rich wrote:
>Revealing their identity and exemplfying with their own words and
>behavior is not an attack stategy. For these truths to intimidates
>them, they must feel guilty or afraid of accountability for their
>actions. It's just the quickest way of providing real information for
>those that may not yet be able to see thru the speciousness of who they
>are really dealing with.
>
OK Wiseass,
Then what's YOUR phone number and address, Wiley Coyote?
Y'know Rich, I don't get this whole thing. It's not so much the exposure
of where people live and how to contact them, but how does this "real
information" intimidate detractors? Did you ever think that people
simply like privacy and don't need assholes like you hunting them down
and connecting this private information with their views on Eckankar?
Sometimes I think you'd like to get your hands around someone's neck and
strangle them for attacking your sacred cow, Eckankar. Truth is, this is
the only way you can get even...play detective. You are just a short
little impotent upstart who once obtained MY phone number by trickery
and now you just play a game of "dare" Why would I dare you, if my
number was unlisted you fool? You went the extra mile and went on a
"Mission From God" to play "Daddy" with me by stroking the chin and
thinking "Let's see, how can I find this guy and teach him a lesson?".
Remember that you are a 5th Initiate of a large spiritual organization
called Eckankar, and these little serial cultic attacks you beset people
with are not in line with your belief. system, except I do believe
Harold pats you on the back for doing such a great job of being a snake.
Remember, if you don't turn the other cheek, someone might turn it for
you. ;.}
CB
arelurker
The mistake you are making here is you ASSUME that anonymous posters
believe the way you do about what they post. Anonymous posters may not
have a problem with revealing to their Moms or Children that they call
somone on a newsgroup a cult puppy.
Because of your ASSUMPTION, you and Rich believe you have some sort of
leverage to stop people from saying what you consider as offensive
things to eckists here.
What you are doing here is a classic example of disempowering yourself
and placing responsibility for your emotions reactions onto the
anonymous poster. Here's the sequence:
You don't like what anonymous posters say. You react emotionally (either
unconsciously or consciously) and you want the feeling to stop. So to
stop the emotion, you feel it is to try to control the person and when
that doesn't work you feel it is necessary to go outside of this group
and call relative in the hope of shaming an anonymous poster to stop
posting whatever it is you that hooked you emotionally.
Can't you see how this scheme is disempowering to you and Rich?
Now on the other hand, the sequence I outlined can be applied to
anonymous critics: They read something of an eckist that they consider
offensive or evokes some kind of hurt feeling and then instead of
dealing with their own hurt by acknowledging it and dealing with it, or
searching for what hooked them, they unload on an eckist. (Eckists do
the same thing.)
This is sequence I just describe constitutes most of the discussions on
a.r.e. that are of a disagreeing nature. This is one kind of interpretation
that occurs here.
But for you to feel justified in taking this outside this newsgroup to
call people's relatives is an escalation of the usual aggression here.
My view is that disagreements and volatile exchanges need to stay in
this group. To call people's mothers or threaten to call people's
mothers or kids is escalation of aggression. When aggression begins to
escalate, it usually starts to take a life of its who. The possibility
exist where physical violence will be seen as justified if and when an
eckist starts calling someone's kids to talk to them about what they
post. Again, this is not a veiled threat by me, but is what I consider a
logical progression from escalation aggression outside this newsgroup.
Do you and Rich really want to eckists and critics to start calling
people and try to get them fired from their jobs, or call their mothers
or whatever?
See how absurd your justification for calling is? See where it could lead?
I understand you and Rich feel extremely disempowered here because you
can't control and dominant critics, but that is your problem you need to
deal with. Advocating an escalation, I fear, will not be healthy for
either one of you or to eckankar's reputation.
>
>
> > > >
> > > > Love
> > > >
> > > > Michael
> > >
> > > Well that's the point of the thing, isn't it? Anonymous posters seem to
> > > abuse their entitlement of suffering through projection to the point
> > > where they have slipped into an abusive pattern of posting on this
> > > group. Ideas are no longer what matters,
> >
> > I'm an anonymous poster and I keep asking you in other threads to
> > support your claims and you refuse to.
>
> Excuse me? The point here is about how posting anonymously can open the
> door to projecting an entitlement of suffering onto the person you're
> posting to. Would you like to say something about this?
I covered this above.
>
> > it's taking their pound of
> > > flesh that brings them back here day after day. No harm no foul if no
> > > one knows that they're behaving in such a way!
> >
> > Behaving what way? Offering alternative viewpoints about eckankar that
> > people can't get in eckankar.
>
> I was going to answer this point, til I read the next statement you made
> below. I would like to point out that this is in my opinion an example
> of exactly what I'm talking about! What you share here has nothing to do
> with your alternative viewpoints on Eckankar! This has to do with your
> need to abuse people verbally.
>
> > It has turned this group,
> > > like many others on usenet, into vacuums of abusive behavior.
> >
> > Cher honey... You need to look at your demeanor honey. I've been working
> > with you on this for some time. Your tone is shamed based and constant
> > barrage of put downs and insult towards those with whom you disagree.
> > You do it so much it is a fixation in your personality.
>
> So now show me what is there here about Eckankar that you wanted to
> discuss?
This particular thread is about poster who post anonymously and make
arguments and how eckists try to use the fact they posted anonymously,
as a refutation of such argument. It is clearly not.
Perhaps if we decide to change the subject to psychology then I
> might point out your need to put other people down and demonize them to
> a lower status then you in need of your help?
Cher you were commenting on what you see as abusive behavior on this
newsgroup, so I took the opportunity to share what I see as your abusive
behavior on this newsgroup. It wasn't off topic.
That's an important
> symptom, if that's what you'd like to look at!
>
> > Like
> > > children with no supervisision, the misbehaving has lost all boundaries
> > > and repercussions. In short, the most uncivilized thing to be these days
> > > appears to be an exmember of any path!
> >
> > Are you feelings hurt Cher?
>
> Why do you need me to feel hurt, lurk? What I've shared is human well
> being in action. Do you see this as injured in some way? Why?
I asked if your feelings are hurt because you keep saying things that
lead me to believe that.
>
> > >
> > > The strange thing is that if you put a name on your posts.... if you
> > > take ownership of the things you say then you put something of who you
> > > are there as well.
> >
> > Yeah a way for nut case eckists to track your family members down and
> > call them. Who wants that?
>
> Gee... it went from one phone call to alfie via his mother to this?
A.r.e. has a long history of eckists trying to get personal information
about critics. That's what people do when they don't have good arguments
about the subject matter. They try to get personal information and use
that to discredit the messenger. Steve Rundfeldt once wrote a letter to
a critic's current spiritual teaching telling on him like a little boy.
You made threats to call Colleen's licensing board. Who needs the
aggravation of cultic harassment?
> Isn't this rather irresponsible of you to try to pass this off as common
> place on this group?
Getting personal information is an eckist old trick here. This
threatening to call
other people's relatives is kind of new. You are jumping on the
bandwagon though and supporting these actions.
I guess you're still prone to screaming fire in a
> packed theatre!
>
> > It doesn't even have to be your real name, but a name
> > > that you chose to share these feelings under, consistently. It's making
> > > a connection of ownership between cause and effect, between the things
> > > you say and do to others in your journey. I guess tinman just couldn't
> > > figure that part of it out! All that tinman managed to do was go find
> > > someone elses words and ideas to support his desire to keep things the
> > > same!
> >
> > The point stands, who is making the argument does not matter one at all
> > to the strength or weakness of the argument. That some of you eckists
> > can't make a strong argument and can't intimidate people from posting
> > here by getting personal information on them and making threats is frustrating.
>
> Gee... but you seem to favor the former high initiate over the ECKist on
> this group as a source of credibility. <sigh> If an argument is strong,
> then why do you need anticultic propoganda to attack the character of
> those who disagree with you?
I don't accept the premise of your question. The cult model is useful in
understanding behavior of eckists.
> Why do you need to dehumanize those who
> disagree with you?
I don't accept the premise of your question. I don't use the cult model
to dehumanize you. I use the cult model to explain perceptions and
viewpoints. My wish for you is that you be more alive when freed from
the limitation of cultic thinking. I like to think I'm humanizing you.
This only proves a lack of accountability in such
> instances. There is no incentive to accept responsibility for ones
> behavior once anonymity is abused. Where are the checks and balances for
> that person?
Eckists use there real names here and still don't accept responsibility
for their actions and comments so I don't think the name has anything to
do with this. Another bogus argument.
> There is the block sender list. That of course is seen as
> censoring others instead of a healthy use of boundaries.
I don't see it as censoring, I see it as an eckist choice. Kind of
childish, but nonetheless a choice.
Lurk
Sam
MICHAEL wrote in message ...
>But Sam, when Alf was calling Bee a Slut, and saying she enjoyed being
>gangbanged by bikies, etc. you seemed to think this was fine... He said it
>many times, and obviously he said it vindictively...
>
>Why the double standard now?
I must have been talking about something else in context. You see, Michael,
I don't always respond directly to the point at a.r.e.. I don't recall
exactly what I was refering to, but here's the DIRECT answer for the record.
When Alf called Bee a slut, he too was being vindictive. I apologize to Bee
if my point was missed.
Maybe the problem with my posting is that I think a bit too abstractly
sometimes. Nobody here is innocent.
If Bee felt hurt by my response, please give her a hug for me and tell her
that Sam never meant any harm.
Love
Sam
Sam
Sharon2000 wrote in message <20031026055601.282$M...@newsreader.com>...
Love
Sam
Sean
I really don't think that matters michael. he said what he said now, and he
said it very very well imho. In our wonderful aussie cricket parlance why
not let that one pass thru to the keeper? ;-)
"MICHAEL" <waf...@crap.com> wrote in message
news:OGNmb.165982$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Sean
you make too much sense for some folks here ..... so please ignore the
quality contribution from our lady of the dark lake, Ms S.
"Sam" <S...@here.ne.t> wrote in message
news:jyJmb.644$JN....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
Sean
"Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote in message
news:bng8p...@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
> Gary Fike wrote in message
>
>
> > The
> > Usual Suspects have long ago given up making reasonable responses to
> > eckankar criticism
>
> Just unreasonable criticism.
>
>
> > and are well into their strategy of header tracking
> > and intimidation. When you have no credible defense, always attack the
> > messenger.
>
> Revealing their identity and exemplfying with their own words and
> behavior is not an attack stategy. For these truths to intimidates
> them, they must feel guilty or afraid of accountability for their
> actions. It's just the quickest way of providing real information for
> those that may not yet be able to see thru the speciousness of who they
> are really dealing with.
>
That's right, obsessed fanatics seeking attention.
Plus, I enjoy seeing the extra workload that changing pseudos creates and
the endless research into annonimity options such as at slack.nl creates,
enjoy the brain drain guys!!! <VBG>
Me, I'm goin' sailing tomorrow ;-)
arelurker
Sam wrote:
>
> Tin Man:
> Now, I've had my battles with Cher in this dance and we both have called
> each other names here due to misunderstanding - heck everybody here has -,
> but Lurk calling Cher here "C" word with such vindictiveness and in such
> repetition is outrageous.
Cher invited me to play a name game with her. She calls me Betty and I
call her cunt. I told Cher if me calling her a cunt offended her, all
she had to do was tell me and ask me to stop.
Lurk
arelurker
Rich wrote:
>
> Gary Fike wrote in message
>
> > The
> > Usual Suspects have long ago given up making reasonable responses to
> > eckankar criticism
>
> Just unreasonable criticism.
>
> > and are well into their strategy of header tracking
> > and intimidation. When you have no credible defense, always attack the
> > messenger.
>
> Revealing their identity and exemplfying with their own words and
> behavior is not an attack stategy. For these truths to intimidates
> them, they must feel guilty or afraid of accountability for their
> actions. It's just the quickest way of providing real information for
> those that may not yet be able to see thru the speciousness of who they
> are really dealing with.
There are lots of reasons why a critic does not want their identity
revealed and it is not necessary being ashamed of what they post as you
and Cher have suggested.
Critics may not want thier address information posted with the
suggestion that people call their wives and kids.
Critics may not want it to be know they were once a member of a cult
since this could effect their current employment of future employment opportunities.
Critic may not want letters written to their current religious
affiliation from childish eckists which has happend.
Critics may not want their licensing boards contacted with bogus
complaints and deal with the beauracries since licensing boards have to
take serious every nut case like Cher that might lodge a complaint.
Critic may want to only focus the discussion on the merits of the
debates or exchanges and not have to deal with ad hominem arguments.
Critic may want to protect their children from being harrassed by people
wanting to call and get them to agree that their father is posint
incorrectly on a newsgroup as Rich has threatened to do.
Lurk
cher
guessed the hand of Kal in the social consciousness of mankind. I guess
you didn't read that discourse? <sigh> Well the only thing backfiring
from my vantage point is that ford johnson is drawing to himself a group
of entrenched hate filled people with no desire to move beyond his
present state of anger and lashing out. How perfect this all fits. The
law of economy. <wink>
Oh... point of the obvious for the day? I'd say Eckankar has been
cleaned up... after all, look who's gone!!! <wink> And see how
effortless that was? <smile>
Tin Man wrote:
<snip the whining>
cher
cher
And who was it that published the work phone number for my RESA and then
justified it to the group? Hmmmm....? I love the double standards you
guys live by... one set of rules for you which is nothing less the
absolute fair game regardless and another set for ECKists whom you
project standards of behavior based solely on your childhood religious
upbringing! Please feel free to comment with something other than
vulgarities.
@aloha.net Rich
"Sharon2000" <bright...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Fuck off, asswipe. 8o)
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=3BB42908.6EA5%40aloha.net
@aloha.net Rich
"Cultbuster" <jam...@are.com> wrote
>
> >Revealing their identity and exemplfying *with their own words and
> >behavior* is not an attack stategy. For these truths to intimidates
> >them, they must feel guilty or afraid of accountability for their
> >actions. It's just the quickest way of providing real information
for
> >those that may not yet be able to see thru the speciousness of who
they
> >are really dealing with.
> >
> OK Wiseass,
<SNIP lies>
http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2A442756
Alfred Radzik
55 Oxford Court
North Branch, NJ 08876-7400
908-281-7301
cher
Gee... I'd love to see the proof of that statement! LOL..... nice
rationalization!
> Because of your ASSUMPTION, you and Rich believe you have some sort of
> leverage to stop people from saying what you consider as offensive
> things to eckists here.
No, that's your ASSUMPTION. No one is trying to make you stop posting to
this group, only clean up your act and behave responsibly for yourselves
and your actions. Is that too big a stretch for you, lurk? Do you see a
difference here? Or is this all just threats to your right to abuse
others at will?
> What you are doing here is a classic example of disempowering yourself
> and placing responsibility for your emotions reactions onto the
> anonymous poster. Here's the sequence:
>
> You don't like what anonymous posters say. You react emotionally (either
> unconsciously or consciously) and you want the feeling to stop. So to
> stop the emotion, you feel it is to try to control the person and when
> that doesn't work you feel it is necessary to go outside of this group
> and call relative in the hope of shaming an anonymous poster to stop
> posting whatever it is you that hooked you emotionally.
>
> Can't you see how this scheme is disempowering to you and Rich?
Nope... that rationalization doesn't cut it. I'm sure you worked long
and hard on it, but it's based on your fear of having to lose your
rights to abuse at will. You seem to base your belief here on the fact
that someone is feeling hurt by the silliness you guys post. Nothing
could be further from the truth. But the fact is, any civilized group of
people can decide that a behavior pattern has gone too far and ask that
it be placed back in the hands of those who show no awareness of their
behavior.
> Now on the other hand, the sequence I outlined can be applied to
> anonymous critics: They read something of an eckist that they consider
> offensive or evokes some kind of hurt feeling and then instead of
> dealing with their own hurt by acknowledging it and dealing with it, or
> searching for what hooked them, they unload on an eckist. (Eckists do
> the same thing.)
>
> This is sequence I just describe constitutes most of the discussions on
> a.r.e. that are of a disagreeing nature. This is one kind of interpretation
> that occurs here.
Truly you seem to have this all worked out in your head to justify your
behavior on this group. But it doesn't change the fact that you behave,
and you own that behavior and it's consequences. There is no
rationalization for or justification of that behavior outside of your
choices and apparently your inability to assume responsibility for such.
> But for you to feel justified in taking this outside this newsgroup to
> call people's relatives is an escalation of the usual aggression here.
> My view is that disagreements and volatile exchanges need to stay in
> this group. To call people's mothers or threaten to call people's
> mothers or kids is escalation of aggression. When aggression begins to
> escalate, it usually starts to take a life of its who. The possibility
> exist where physical violence will be seen as justified if and when an
> eckist starts calling someone's kids to talk to them about what they
> post. Again, this is not a veiled threat by me, but is what I consider a
> logical progression from escalation aggression outside this newsgroup.
>
> Do you and Rich really want to eckists and critics to start calling
> people and try to get them fired from their jobs, or call their mothers
> or whatever?
What a short memory you have. Who was it that posted the link the work
phone number to my RESA clearly stating that as an ECKist I needed to be
stopped! <smile> That just smacks of double standards on your part. Have
you gotten so comfortable in talking out of both sides of your mouth? My
phone number was published to this group! So was Windy's! Do I see you
acknowledging this reality here? Nope... just pissing and moaning over
the possibility that your mom might get a call some day. <smile> That's
a wake up call, lurk. Clean it up. <smile>
> See how absurd your justification for calling is? See where it could lead?
>
> I understand you and Rich feel extremely disempowered here because you
> can't control and dominant critics, but that is your problem you need to
> deal with. Advocating an escalation, I fear, will not be healthy for
> either one of you or to eckankar's reputation.
Poor lurk, so stuck in your own little viewpoint incapable of seeing the
bigger picture here. Such a victims stance from you. No one cares about
the things detractors post here ad nauseam. They are deep in the
archives for anyone who's interested in that sort of thing. You don't
even need to be here any longer.... you've flooded this group with
negative propaganda over the years. Your job is actually done. Being
here is just a choice now... not an obligation. <smile>
> >
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > Love
> > > > >
> > > > > Michael
> > > >
> > > > Well that's the point of the thing, isn't it? Anonymous posters seem to
> > > > abuse their entitlement of suffering through projection to the point
> > > > where they have slipped into an abusive pattern of posting on this
> > > > group. Ideas are no longer what matters,
> > >
> > > I'm an anonymous poster and I keep asking you in other threads to
> > > support your claims and you refuse to.
> >
> > Excuse me? The point here is about how posting anonymously can open the
> > door to projecting an entitlement of suffering onto the person you're
> > posting to. Would you like to say something about this?
>
> I covered this above.
No, you missed it entirely. That's why I brought it up again.
> >
> > > it's taking their pound of
> > > > flesh that brings them back here day after day. No harm no foul if no
> > > > one knows that they're behaving in such a way!
> > >
> > > Behaving what way? Offering alternative viewpoints about eckankar that
> > > people can't get in eckankar.
> >
> > I was going to answer this point, til I read the next statement you made
> > below. I would like to point out that this is in my opinion an example
> > of exactly what I'm talking about! What you share here has nothing to do
> > with your alternative viewpoints on Eckankar! This has to do with your
> > need to abuse people verbally.
> >
> > > It has turned this group,
> > > > like many others on usenet, into vacuums of abusive behavior.
> > >
> > > Cher honey... You need to look at your demeanor honey. I've been working
> > > with you on this for some time. Your tone is shamed based and constant
> > > barrage of put downs and insult towards those with whom you disagree.
> > > You do it so much it is a fixation in your personality.
> >
> > So now show me what is there here about Eckankar that you wanted to
> > discuss?
>
> This particular thread is about poster who post anonymously and make
> arguments and how eckists try to use the fact they posted anonymously,
> as a refutation of such argument. It is clearly not.
I agree it clearly is not. It's about the behavior of those who post
here under the premise that any behavior is acceptable because they are
posting anonymously. That's what the discussion is about. Your right to
argue till you turn blue in the face is not threatened lurk. Calm down.
It's your behavior in arguing that's the issue here. There is nothing
that you can say on this group now that clearly isn't available on the
web from countless years of detractors posts. Same old arguments too. So
what makes you think that by saying this abuse of anonymity is somehow
supposed to stop you from your choices? It's about accountability for
your behavior, not your views. These are clearly different issues.
> Perhaps if we decide to change the subject to psychology then I
> > might point out your need to put other people down and demonize them to
> > a lower status then you in need of your help?
>
> Cher you were commenting on what you see as abusive behavior on this
> newsgroup, so I took the opportunity to share what I see as your abusive
> behavior on this newsgroup. It wasn't off topic.
Is that the going excuse of trying to make the issue instead of the
issue at hand? Is that how you do this sort of thing? Odd... that shows
up in all the data on line about verbally abusive people, that very self
same excuse. Strange. You should look it up.
> That's an important
> > symptom, if that's what you'd like to look at!
> >
> > > Like
> > > > children with no supervisision, the misbehaving has lost all boundaries
> > > > and repercussions. In short, the most uncivilized thing to be these days
> > > > appears to be an exmember of any path!
> > >
> > > Are you feelings hurt Cher?
> >
> > Why do you need me to feel hurt, lurk? What I've shared is human well
> > being in action. Do you see this as injured in some way? Why?
>
> I asked if your feelings are hurt because you keep saying things that
> lead me to believe that.
Again, you try to fix this issue of accountability onto me. You do that
allot, lurk. Seriously.
> >
> > > >
> > > > The strange thing is that if you put a name on your posts.... if you
> > > > take ownership of the things you say then you put something of who you
> > > > are there as well.
> > >
> > > Yeah a way for nut case eckists to track your family members down and
> > > call them. Who wants that?
> >
> > Gee... it went from one phone call to alfie via his mother to this?
>
> A.r.e. has a long history of eckists trying to get personal information
> about critics. That's what people do when they don't have good arguments
> about the subject matter. They try to get personal information and use
> that to discredit the messenger. Steve Rundfeldt once wrote a letter to
> a critic's current spiritual teaching telling on him like a little boy.
> You made threats to call Colleen's licensing board. Who needs the
> aggravation of cultic harassment?
Is Sally Fields going to play the part of Colleen in the movie when it
comes out? <smile> Steve did what he did because colleen was clearly
establishing herself as therapist on this group and trying to drum up
business for her anticult counseling based on her negative experiences
in Eckankar. That's something that perhaps you might not understand but
clearly the professional community would. You should look into the
ethics for her profession before you make her the poster child here in
the case you're building. There were clearly ethical violations that
were forming. She should thank Steve for saving her license! I thought
he should leave her to her own devices and hang herself with her
behavior. Frankly it's her profession and if she is that ignorant of the
ethics expected of her then let her learn the hard way!
> > Isn't this rather irresponsible of you to try to pass this off as common
> > place on this group?
>
> Getting personal information is an eckist old trick here. This
> threatening to call
> other people's relatives is kind of new. You are jumping on the
> bandwagon though and supporting these actions.
What do you have to say this time about the information on my RESA's
work number being published with remarks about having me removed from
the path of Eckankar? Hmmmm?
> I guess you're still prone to screaming fire in a
> > packed theatre!
> >
> > > It doesn't even have to be your real name, but a name
> > > > that you chose to share these feelings under, consistently. It's making
> > > > a connection of ownership between cause and effect, between the things
> > > > you say and do to others in your journey. I guess tinman just couldn't
> > > > figure that part of it out! All that tinman managed to do was go find
> > > > someone elses words and ideas to support his desire to keep things the
> > > > same!
> > >
> > > The point stands, who is making the argument does not matter one at all
> > > to the strength or weakness of the argument. That some of you eckists
> > > can't make a strong argument and can't intimidate people from posting
> > > here by getting personal information on them and making threats is frustrating.
> >
> > Gee... but you seem to favor the former high initiate over the ECKist on
> > this group as a source of credibility. <sigh> If an argument is strong,
> > then why do you need anticultic propoganda to attack the character of
> > those who disagree with you?
>
> I don't accept the premise of your question. The cult model is useful in
> understanding behavior of eckists.
No actually because it isn't a professionally accepted model it only
serves to disassociate the antagonists from their humanity. In fact is a
permission for those who feel threatened and injured to go on a witch
hunt. The APA is still looking to see if there is any evidence in this
information that has been based solely on nonprofessional exmembers. The
book is still out on this whole issue, lurk. That's why I can stand here
and tell you that there is no science involved in the material about so
called cults that you use as an excuse! The detrimental effects of such
behavior based on this group of amateur theories has begun to surface
and it's truly disconcerting to discover that to date the greatest
abuses have come from those who buy into this pop culture of
anticultism. You should take a look at the material surrounding that
particular area of belief of yours. You're so prone to critical views.
> > Why do you need to dehumanize those who
> > disagree with you?
>
> I don't accept the premise of your question. I don't use the cult model
> to dehumanize you. I use the cult model to explain perceptions and
> viewpoints. My wish for you is that you be more alive when freed from
> the limitation of cultic thinking. I like to think I'm humanizing you.
You need to double check your premise here, lurk. First of all, the
practice of disassociating the humanity of the one you disagree with is
not based on sound science. No where is it considered appropriate to
behave in this manner outside of perhaps cultures that are being charged
with human rights violations. And secondly where would you place the
onus of responsibility on the abuser here? Might makes right? Your
answers are so absolute that it justifies you treating others in the
manner that you do? This reeks of manifest destiny, lurk. And that's a
personal side note. <shudder> I refuse to be removed from my beliefs and
sent to your white mans schools. <grinning> Nope.... that doesn't buy it
these days, lurk.
Your beliefs in the anticult material gives you permission to
disassociate ECKists from their humanity. That is a first step in cultic
behavior, according to the true science that exists on the subject.
That's what the germans did, remember?
> This only proves a lack of accountability in such
> > instances. There is no incentive to accept responsibility for ones
> > behavior once anonymity is abused. Where are the checks and balances for
> > that person?
>
> Eckists use there real names here and still don't accept responsibility
> for their actions and comments so I don't think the name has anything to
> do with this. Another bogus argument.
According to whom? Those who set out to change others rather than share
ideas and viewpoints? Hmmm? See this slips back into the confusion of
ideas with people. Not helpful.
> > There is the block sender list. That of course is seen as
> > censoring others instead of a healthy use of boundaries.
>
> I don't see it as censoring, I see it as an eckist choice. Kind of
> childish, but nonetheless a choice.
See it anyway you chose to, to get through your day. The fact is, it's a
process of setting boundaries based on behavior, not ideas. And the
confusion of these two is no longer an acceptable excuse.
cher
cher
Rev Marc
> day these are never quite the same.
If you truly had an accurate grasp of the "truth", you would know that
consciousness not only changes from moment to moment, but does not even
exist, for if all is One, then how could consciousness ever be "split away"
from the One, from the "now" moment in order for one to call it changing?
How could the One ever be changing? Whom is doing the viewing?
I suggest that you would first clear up your own understanding of your true
nature before you continue to attack others based on your incorrect
spiritual beliefs.
The Rev
==========================================================================
"Sharon2000" <bright...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20031026055601.282$M...@newsreader.com...
Sean
"Cultbuster" <jam...@are.com> wrote in message
news:10671732...@newshost01.voicenet.com...
>
>
> Rich wrote:
>
> >Revealing their identity and exemplfying with their own words and
> >behavior is not an attack stategy. For these truths to intimidates
> >them, they must feel guilty or afraid of accountability for their
> >actions. It's just the quickest way of providing real information for
> >those that may not yet be able to see thru the speciousness of who they
> >are really dealing with.
> >
For slow learners: with a little help from Alfie
.......................................
> OK Wiseless Attention Seeking Soul,
> Would you like MY phone number and address, Road Runner? Can't give you my
mothers, she died 23 years ago.
> Y'know Alf, I don't get this whole thing. It's not so much the exposure
> of where people live and how to contact them, but how this changing of
"false/anonymous poster information" is a tool to intimidate, trick,
manipulate, bait,
test, and confuse genuine posters, both eckists and visitors-lurkers alike.
Not to mention the false pretences that there are dozens of detractors here
when really it's a tiny pack of the same old fanatical has-beens.
> Did you ever think that people
> simply like to get it straight and honest down the line, irrspective of
anyone's personal views about Eckankar, and don't need assholes like you
manipulating them endlessly?
> Sometimes I think you'd like to get your hands around an Eckist's neck and
> strangle them for being so independent as to make a choice that was
different than your own. Not everyone is into thuggish brawls in the lot
outside the local saloon bar and think of it as a fun night out, let alone
with being threatened with violence if ever you were to come across them on
the street, which you have repeatedly threatened people with when it gets
all a bit too difficult for you.
Truth is, this is
> the only way you can get even... by playing hide and seek, trick or treat.
Well kids play those games Alf, are you a kid? You are just a short
> little impotent upstart who finally found an opportunity to be noticed
publicly without the risk of being arrested again! Rich obtained YOUR phone
number by your own foolishness in playing a game of "dare" that backfired in
your face big time! Do you copy your posts to this newsgroup so your mum can
read them every Sunday morning with her pot of tea and think what a sweet
son she brought into the world?
> Your scheme to make Rich look a fool by daring him to ring you when your
number was unlisted is what ended up making you look like the fool
instead!!! It backfired. And BIG TIME!
Tell me you didn't lie thru your teeth to your own mother about this when it
happened, and I'll tell you, you are still a liar!!! So who's the fool here?
Smart asses get busted all the time because they think they are so damn
smart, when really they can't see the consequences past the length of their
own dick. This is a classic case of why amateur criminals end up in jail
everyday ...... they just can't think ahead and cover all the bases.
This is the real problem here isn't it? You are still as pissed as hell that
you made a complete fool out of yourself ........... you 'thought' he
wouldn't find your unlisted number and HE DID! You said, "ring me", and HE
DID!
But that isn't Rich fault, only dumb people blame smart people for their own
stupidity and lack of foresight. People bitch about the police all the time
about that one.
You know he was nice to your mother, you know he didn't tell stories about
you, you know he didn't blow your cover with your mum about the low life
scum sucking abuse to pan out to women especially on this newsgroup. He
reached out to you as an equal and you have been shafting ever since, and
still today arer paying out on him, becuase of yuor own lack of foresight
and intelligence.
YOU didn't think it thru. YOU screwed up, not Rich. But that isn't a crime,
that's just a mistake, everyone makes mistakes. YOUR problem is still not
seeing it, still not having the integrity of a real man to apologise for
blaming Rich for years on end for your OWN DUMB MISTAKE. That's the problem
here, not the fact that Rich made a simple phone call you foolishly dared
him to make.
And Rich has never gone back to your mother and told her the honest truth
about her son either. You write what you write, nobody makes you do it.
Please dare me or ask me to print out your posts about Bee from the other
month and I'll mail them to your mother. Maybe it's about time she fully
realised what an absolute gutless low life of a man her son has turned out
to be?
That's the REAL issue here, it's got nothing to do with Rich's behaviour, he
behaved honourably and followed thru with his agreement. You are the one
with the character defects and you've been been trying to pass that buck
onto Rich now for friggin years, you obviously still don't get it! It ain't
rocket science. Any street thug worth his salt would work this one out in a
flash ......... bikers included.
It just ain't going to stick bucko.
You went the extra mile and went on a fanatics
> "Mission From God" to play "Big Tough Daddy" with Rich by trying to
outsmart him and thinking "Let's see, how can I waste this guy's time and
teach him a lesson?".
> Remember that you are the one who imagined he'd never find it, and he was
on the phone to you within 30 minutes of doing a bit of basic research and
creative thinking on his feet. Rich has told this group a thousand times and
posted the information hundreds of times of how he found the listing of your
mothers phone under the name "Alfred Radzik" in "New Jersey" !!!
............. now excuse me bucko, but what on earth do you think that
suggests, even to the dumbest person on earth?
Maybe you expect Ford, or David Lane, or Lurk, or Sharon, or whoever of the
long list of die hard detractors on this group will pat you on the back for
doing such a great job of being a snake?
> But remember, if you don't change your behaviour, someone might turn up
one day and re-adjust your life forever. Bikers don't screw around with dead
weights, and none of these other guys on the ng are going to be there to
back you up. Your imaginary friends here care zilch for slow witted grunts
like you my boy. Think about that before you respond.
Life is full of choices Alf, and we get lots of second chances before we are
all finally pushing up the daises. It's a simple choice to apologise to
Rich, and every other person on this group who you have cruelly insulted,
threatened and verbally abused over the years [especially the mothers] and
be a real man.
Then let it go and get on with your life. The freedom is worth the humility.
Ken
Tried to email you but it bounced.
Do you have a new address?
"Sam" <S...@here.ne.t> wrote ...
cher
Sean
"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3F9C297B...@worldnet.att.net...
> True true... it's what we learn along the way, hey? <smile>
>
Yes, even if we are really slow learners, like moi. <g>
As a little birdie said: Things that are past and past [sic]
..... but but but but damn it's hard <G>
cher
Sean
many good points in this post Cher but this one really sums it up the grand
canyon......
Lurk
> This particular thread is about poster who post anonymously and make
> arguments and how eckists try to use the fact they posted anonymously,
> as a refutation of such argument. It is clearly not.
Cher
Sean
Any chance you could clarify what it is you mean here Rev?
consciousness not only changes from moment to moment, but does not even
> exist
How could the One ever be changing?
you continue to attack others based on your incorrect
> spiritual beliefs.
"Rev Marc" <Rev@Kingdomof Heaven> wrote in message
news:2oidnUJvg4C...@comcast.com...
Sean
"Ken" <kah...@attachments.att.net> wrote in message
news:AlWmb.15588$Ec1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Hey Sam,
>
> Tried to email you but it bounced.
>
> Do you have a new address?
>
yes he does, the dreaded spammers got him by the ....... !
I can send it thru if he doesn't pop in ken, ......... unless he's block
sendered ya! <G>
Sean
And critics may not want their personal information posted because they are
about to catch a plane and fly to MN to wreak their insane version of
justice upon Eckankar and it's leaders ...........................
Luckily, when this actually DID happen, after one such unstable person spent
some time on this newsgroup, the authorities were waiting and arrested the
guy immediately.
Now, we would not want that to happen now would we Lurk?
PULL YOUR HEAD OUT YOUR ASS, and look at the REAL world, and look up the
Patriot Act while you are at it.
It is HERE and NOW, and the level of verbal bigotry on this group by people
like you who de-humanise civilised kind hearted ladies and label them
CAPITALS, is what fuels this type of errant behaviour in the more unbalanced
of fanatical individuals, who begin to actually believe the lies and
misrepresetnations that you and your kind get up to here everyday about a
simple and loving spiritual path like Eckankar.
The rhetoric on this newsgroup is no better than the Prime Minister of
Malayasia, recently telling all Muslims in the world that 1 billion of them
can win the "war" against the Jews who are running the entire world and
oppressing them.
It is crazy, it is fanaticism, it is it is an incitment that can so easily
lead to REAL harm to other people who are simply going about there lives in
a balanced and lawful manner.
You have been doing this for years, and your verbage here is second only to
Alf. Some company you keep. I think it is about time you just got lost and
took your hatred, and psycho babble elsewhere, eg to a real therapist!!!
Please my separate repsonses below:
"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3F9C2BA0...@worldnet.att.net...
>
>
>
> There are lots of reasons why a critic does not want their identity
> revealed and it is not necessary being ashamed of what they post as you
> and Cher have suggested.
>
The issue isn't one of anonymity, it is the endless changing of an
individuals pseudo in an attempt to avoid accountabilty, and openness and
honesty in dialog.
You are annonymous Lurk, no one has a problem with that, UNLESS you also
post under separate pseudo's in order to create the FALSE impression that
there are many posting when there is only you.
> Critics may not want thier address information posted with the
> suggestion that people call their wives and kids.
>
Again you fail to acknowledge obsessive detractors incited to threaten Cher
with reporting her to her RESA, and that person's private details POSTED
HERE, when they have never posted here in their entire life.
You are not only implicated in encouraging this type of attack against Cher,
who has NEVER done anything like this in her life, but your lack of
integrity and consistency is more than obvious here.
Alf is not a valid "critic" or genuine detractor, he is an abuser
............ There is a difference between Alf and regular trolls, and
apostates and detractors. He falls in none of the last three categories. He
does not discuss Eckankar but is simply insulting, abusive and threatens
physical violence against people and has done for years.
The more you support him personally, the further down the totem pole you are
sliding.
You have already hit the absolute bottom with your recent remarks about
Cher, as I and others have recently pointed out to you.
> Critics may not want it to be know they were once a member of a cult
> since this could effect their current employment of future employment
> opportunities.
>
The issue is not simple anonymity ........ it is multiple pseudos.
Eckists here today, right now, [now nathan is no longer here and has joined
your team] respect people's right to post their views, even when we
disagree. When behaviour gets so extreme or it becomes mere spamming of the
same posts endlessly, then some choose to simplify their life by using the
block sender list.
Then the most adversarial trolls, switch their identity again with the ONLY
purpose to harrass and annoy Eckists as much as possible, probably because
of their personal hatred or whatever their particular disorder maybe.
That is NOT civilised behaviour in any normal social environment, it is
childish, it is abusive of people's personal space, and it is totally
against the spirit and letter of the US Constitution and Dec. of Indepence.
IF this type of behaviour happened anywhere in real life, these people would
be arrested and found guilty of stalking or something similar.
That they hide behind their multiple anonymity, and think somehow that this
is justifiable simply because it is a newsgroup and Eckanakr 'deserves it",
reeks of a lack of accountabilty and responsiblity for their own actions.
THAT IS THE ISSUE .......... Cher has told you endlessly already the last
few days and you STILL DON'T GET IT.
> Critic may not want letters written to their current religious
> affiliation from childish eckists which has happend.
>
No Eckist on this group now has EVER done that or threatened that. This is a
strawman argument
> Critics may not want their licensing boards contacted with bogus
> complaints and deal with the beauracries since licensing boards have to
> take serious every nut case like Cher that might lodge a complaint.
>
You are obviously referring to Colleen, who posted her real name, and posted
her personal information, beat up storms in a teacup over nothing,
encouraged anyone associated with Eckankar to leave the "dangerous cult",
and THEN she began touting for business on this group and others as an
"ex-cult" therapist. It was seen then as UNETHICAL behaviour by a
professional by many on this group, and it still is.
Her professional body CAMFT in California listed on their website a PUBLICLY
available process to follow for lodging complaints against members of that
body. That website became known here from Colleen posting information and
links about it herself on her OWN website that she was posting her URL for.
That process was NOT instigated by Cheryl, and I can assure you that the
only person who subsequently PUBLICLY breached the CONFIDENTIALITY of the
Board, and it's Members rules about the complaint process, was the member
herself, namely Colleen.
This FACT alone, and depsite the fact that the board found there was no case
for her to answer, PROVES she is of dubious character to be acting in a
professional capacity with clients where confidentiality is a far more
critical than any issue you have mentioned in this list about 'supposed'
Eckists behaviour.
I can say without hesitation that, imho and ime, anyone seeking any level of
confidentiality from that woman in a professional capacity had better think
twice about it.
> Critic may want to only focus the discussion on the merits of the
> debates or exchanges and not have to deal with ad hominem arguments.
>
Strawman argument from the world's greatest ad hominen arguer on a.r.e.
It is IRRELEVANT as far as ad hominen's is concerned, whether one knows the
person's real name or address.
You ad hominened me repeatedly when I first came on this group and you
didn't have a clue who I was then ............. so this is another crock
you like to repeatedly roll out for the naive and the absolute dumbest of
dumb.
> Critic may want to protect their children from being harrassed by people
> wanting to call and get them to agree that their father is posint
> incorrectly on a newsgroup as Rich has threatened to do.
>
It was a JOKE designed to draw attention to the lack of accountabilty for
immature behaviour by Joe, with the obvious lack of credibilty this
behaviour would be viewed as in normal social circumstances.
IF the intention was to really contact his family via his address or phone
or email that could have occured long before now. It is OBVIOUS to all it
was a joke only and NOT a threat in way shape of form, as Rich has
repeatedly attested.
In other words, we had a "dad" acting like a 2 year old, and he still is.
And you continue to support this type of immature, obsessive behaviour, and
you continue to be treated with the contempt it deserves by me.
> Lurk
Thanks for posting this Cher. I'm sure Rich will follow up with some apt
url's
Ken
"Sean" <lifeswha...@earth.org> wrote ...
Good choice Sean. And thanks for the heads up. I skipped over
that post along with most of the other Cher/Lurk exchanges. (Gone
from the n.g. for less than two weeks and over 1800 unread
posts ...)
What this place needs is a Readers Digest condensed version
that skips over all the unnecessary fluff and just prints the interesting
"heart of the matter" stuff.
Oh, and the funny stuff too.
Ken
"Sean" <lifeswha...@earth.org> wrote ...
>
> "Ken" <kah...@attachments.att.net> wrote in message
> news:AlWmb.15588$Ec1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Hey Sam,
> >
> > Tried to email you but it bounced.
> >
> > Do you have a new address?
> >
>
> yes he does, the dreaded spammers got him by the ....... !
>
> I can send it thru if he doesn't pop in ken, ......... unless he's block
> sendered ya! <G>
I'm sure he'll be around shortly. Condolences about his .... ;-)
Thanks, Sean.
arelurker
Pointing out your assumption is not my rationalization.
>
> > Because of your ASSUMPTION, you and Rich believe you have some sort of
> > leverage to stop people from saying what you consider as offensive
> > things to eckists here.
>
> No, that's your ASSUMPTION. No one is trying to make you stop posting to
> this group, only clean up your act and behave responsibly for yourselves
> and your actions.
Clean up? You mean behave and post according to whose standards? Your's
and Rich's? I see. Thanks for revealing your agenda.
>Is that too big a stretch for you, lurk?
Yes, I don't live and conduct myself according your standards and
assumptions about how I should behave.
Do you see a
> difference here? Or is this all just threats to your right to abuse
> others at will?
Again, two other assumptions you make: 1) that my posts are abusive, and
2) that I view them this way and therefore am afraid to tell my Mom
about them.
There is no end to your control trip you on.
>
> > What you are doing here is a classic example of disempowering yourself
> > and placing responsibility for your emotions reactions onto the
> > anonymous poster. Here's the sequence:
> >
> > You don't like what anonymous posters say. You react emotionally (either
> > unconsciously or consciously) and you want the feeling to stop. So to
> > stop the emotion, you feel it is to try to control the person and when
> > that doesn't work you feel it is necessary to go outside of this group
> > and call relative in the hope of shaming an anonymous poster to stop
> > posting whatever it is you that hooked you emotionally.
> >
> > Can't you see how this scheme is disempowering to you and Rich?
>
> Nope... that rationalization doesn't cut it.
It is not a rationalization. You and Rich seem real keen on controlling
the way people post here because you view it as abuse. Everyone has a
different viewpoint about what constitutes abuse. Some eckists think
posting negative information about eckankar is abusive. Some think foul
language as abusive. In another post, you claimed that me calling you a
knucklehead was abusive. See how varied this is. Why should the group
live by your definition of what is abusive? You know what, we don't and
there in lies the problem for you. You try and try to make those bad
feelings go away by controlling others. My advice is to give it up and
deal with your own emotions, both of you. Maybe if you both did some
real personal growth work this would become evident to you.
I'm sure you worked long
> and hard on it, but it's based on your fear of having to lose your
> rights to abuse at will. You seem to base your belief here on the fact
> that someone is feeling hurt by the silliness you guys post. Nothing
> could be further from the truth.
If it is true that no body's feelings are hurt by posts, then how is it abuse?
You're getting flustered and contradicting yourself in the same paragraph.
But the fact is, any civilized group of
> people can decide that a behavior pattern has gone too far and ask that
> it be placed back in the hands of those who show no awareness of their
> behavior.
You can decide whatever you want, but I and others are free to post
negative stuff about eckankar, are free to call you a knucklehead if I
want. Quit trying to control free expression here and the way people
behave.
>
> > Now on the other hand, the sequence I outlined can be applied to
> > anonymous critics: They read something of an eckist that they consider
> > offensive or evokes some kind of hurt feeling and then instead of
> > dealing with their own hurt by acknowledging it and dealing with it, or
> > searching for what hooked them, they unload on an eckist. (Eckists do
> > the same thing.)
> >
> > This is sequence I just describe constitutes most of the discussions on
> > a.r.e. that are of a disagreeing nature. This is one kind of interpretation
> > that occurs here.
>
> Truly you seem to have this all worked out in your head to justify your
> behavior on this group.
Your response here is telling me you are unwilling or unable to speak
seriously about quality of exchanges here on a.r.e.. I fairly present
the dynamic that occurs with both eckists and critics that leads to
rancor and you simply dismiss it off handedly.
I'm attempting to be objective here....but you seem to be open to such dialog.
But it doesn't change the fact that you behave,
> and you own that behavior and it's consequences. There is no
> rationalization for or justification of that behavior outside of your
> choices and apparently your inability to assume responsibility for such.
All you are doing here is confirming the dynamic I pointed out that is
contributing to the rancor.
>
> > But for you to feel justified in taking this outside this newsgroup to
> > call people's relatives is an escalation of the usual aggression here.
> > My view is that disagreements and volatile exchanges need to stay in
> > this group. To call people's mothers or threaten to call people's
> > mothers or kids is escalation of aggression. When aggression begins to
> > escalate, it usually starts to take a life of its who. The possibility
> > exist where physical violence will be seen as justified if and when an
> > eckist starts calling someone's kids to talk to them about what they
> > post. Again, this is not a veiled threat by me, but is what I consider a
> > logical progression from escalation aggression outside this newsgroup.
> >
> > Do you and Rich really want to eckists and critics to start calling
> > people and try to get them fired from their jobs, or call their mothers
> > or whatever?
>
> What a short memory you have. Who was it that posted the link the work
> phone number to my RESA clearly stating that as an ECKist I needed to be
> stopped! <smile>
I thought is was an eckist who did that. And I'm record as having stated
that I disagree with that whether it was an eckists or not.
> That just smacks of double standards on your part. Have
> you gotten so comfortable in talking out of both sides of your mouth? My
> phone number was published to this group! So was Windy's!
I don't agree with that either. See what Rich's and your behave
inspires? That's what I'm talking about...the escalation thing.
What's next with your nuts? Calling each others employers to see if we
can get each other fired?
Do I see you
> acknowledging this reality here? Nope... just pissing and moaning over
> the possibility that your mom might get a call some day. <smile> That's
> a wake up call, lurk. Clean it up. <smile>
Cher I don't think any critic should post address or phone information
on newsgroup. I've said this before but apparently you feel a strong
need to act as though I haven't.
>
> > See how absurd your justification for calling is? See where it could lead?
> >
> > I understand you and Rich feel extremely disempowered here because you
> > can't control and dominant critics, but that is your problem you need to
> > deal with. Advocating an escalation, I fear, will not be healthy for
> > either one of you or to eckankar's reputation.
>
> Poor lurk, so stuck in your own little viewpoint incapable of seeing the
> bigger picture here. Such a victims stance from you.
I think my stance is a realistic stance. Escalation takes on a life of
its own. I think you and Rich should seriously reconsider your
positions. I think you and Rich should learn to control you own emotions
instead of trying to control other people and disempowering yourself in
the process.
No one cares about
> the things detractors post here ad nauseam. They are deep in the
> archives for anyone who's interested in that sort of thing. You don't
> even need to be here any longer.... you've flooded this group with
> negative propaganda over the years. Your job is actually done. Being
> here is just a choice now... not an obligation. <smile>
Too bad that you are not responding to the substance of my comments. I
am seriously reaching out to you and Rich to put an end to the
escalation you two are instigating and advocating. Seems you are
unavailable for cool headed discourse.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Love
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Michael
> > > > >
> > > > > Well that's the point of the thing, isn't it? Anonymous posters seem to
> > > > > abuse their entitlement of suffering through projection to the point
> > > > > where they have slipped into an abusive pattern of posting on this
> > > > > group. Ideas are no longer what matters,
> > > >
> > > > I'm an anonymous poster and I keep asking you in other threads to
> > > > support your claims and you refuse to.
> > >
> > > Excuse me? The point here is about how posting anonymously can open the
> > > door to projecting an entitlement of suffering onto the person you're
> > > posting to. Would you like to say something about this?
> >
> > I covered this above.
>
> No, you missed it entirely. That's why I brought it up again.
Okay....
The dynamic of someone feeling hurt or angry and dumping it on other
posters happens whether people post anonymously or with their name. You
have been dumping on people for many years and use your name. So it
hasn't stopped you. You contradict your own viewpoint.
You are taking one variable (identity) and attributing cause to that. The
point is: whether an eckist or a critic dumps on the OTHER or not,
whomever they dump on has a choice: To ignore or to disagree.
Posting address information with the hope that they call someone's wife
or kids is no way to handle this.
What's next? If an eckist dumps on a critic, then we should look the
eckists up and do research and find out where they work and call there
boss. See how absurd you people are being?
>
> > >
> > > > it's taking their pound of
> > > > > flesh that brings them back here day after day. No harm no foul if no
> > > > > one knows that they're behaving in such a way!
> > > >
> > > > Behaving what way? Offering alternative viewpoints about eckankar that
> > > > people can't get in eckankar.
> > >
> > > I was going to answer this point, til I read the next statement you made
> > > below. I would like to point out that this is in my opinion an example
> > > of exactly what I'm talking about! What you share here has nothing to do
> > > with your alternative viewpoints on Eckankar! This has to do with your
> > > need to abuse people verbally.
> > >
> > > > It has turned this group,
> > > > > like many others on usenet, into vacuums of abusive behavior.
> > > >
> > > > Cher honey... You need to look at your demeanor honey. I've been working
> > > > with you on this for some time. Your tone is shamed based and constant
> > > > barrage of put downs and insult towards those with whom you disagree.
> > > > You do it so much it is a fixation in your personality.
> > >
> > > So now show me what is there here about Eckankar that you wanted to
> > > discuss?
> >
> > This particular thread is about poster who post anonymously and make
> > arguments and how eckists try to use the fact they posted anonymously,
> > as a refutation of such argument. It is clearly not.
>
> I agree it clearly is not. It's about the behavior of those who post
> here under the premise that any behavior is acceptable because they are
> posting anonymously.
We're back to Cher's definition of what is abusive and her feeling
justified in enforcing (controlling) her definition on others by
advocating going outside the group and telling relatives, etc.
That's what the discussion is about. Your right to
> argue till you turn blue in the face is not threatened lurk. Calm down.
> It's your behavior in arguing that's the issue here.
So I'm not allow to call you a knucklehead because, as you claimed in
another post, that is abusive? I don't agree.
See the difficulty in you trying to control and decide what is and is
not abusive? That's why it is important for you to take responsibility
for you own emotional responses instead of instead of trying to enforce
your dubious concept of what is and is not abusive on the group.
There is nothing
> that you can say on this group now that clearly isn't available on the
> web from countless years of detractors posts. Same old arguments too.
I feel I have a unique perspective on things.
So
> what makes you think that by saying this abuse of anonymity is somehow
> supposed to stop you from your choices?
Asking me to post using my real name is you trying to control enforce
your value system. I chose not to, not for the reasons you are claiming.
> It's about accountability for
> your behavior, not your views. These are clearly different issues.
yeah I'm such a bad boy... I called you a knucklehead
and abused you.
Grow up.
>
> > Perhaps if we decide to change the subject to psychology then I
> > > might point out your need to put other people down and demonize them to
> > > a lower status then you in need of your help?
> >
> > Cher you were commenting on what you see as abusive behavior on this
> > newsgroup, so I took the opportunity to share what I see as your abusive
> > behavior on this newsgroup. It wasn't off topic.
>
> Is that the going excuse of trying to make the issue instead of the
> issue at hand?
I brought this up to assert that I was not off topic as you claimed.
Is that how you do this sort of thing? Odd... that shows
> up in all the data on line about verbally abusive people, that very self
> same excuse. Strange. You should look it up.
If you want me to be accountable for what you see is my abusive
behavior, then point out what you see as abusive and I'll give you an
accounting. You don't need to call my spouse or kids to get an
accounting. Just ask! See how easy that is?
>
> > That's an important
> > > symptom, if that's what you'd like to look at!
> > >
> > > > Like
> > > > > children with no supervisision, the misbehaving has lost all boundaries
> > > > > and repercussions. In short, the most uncivilized thing to be these days
> > > > > appears to be an exmember of any path!
> > > >
> > > > Are you feelings hurt Cher?
> > >
> > > Why do you need me to feel hurt, lurk? What I've shared is human well
> > > being in action. Do you see this as injured in some way? Why?
> >
> > I asked if your feelings are hurt because you keep saying things that
> > lead me to believe that.
>
> Again, you try to fix this issue of accountability onto me.
Shouldn't you be accountable for your feelings? I'm certainly not going
to be accountable for your feelings as much as you try to shift
responsibility to me (See the sequence I mentioned earlier in this post).
You do that
> allot, lurk. Seriously.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The strange thing is that if you put a name on your posts.... if you
> > > > > take ownership of the things you say then you put something of who you
> > > > > are there as well.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah a way for nut case eckists to track your family members down and
> > > > call them. Who wants that?
> > >
> > > Gee... it went from one phone call to alfie via his mother to this?
> >
> > A.r.e. has a long history of eckists trying to get personal information
> > about critics. That's what people do when they don't have good arguments
> > about the subject matter. They try to get personal information and use
> > that to discredit the messenger. Steve Rundfeldt once wrote a letter to
> > a critic's current spiritual teaching telling on him like a little boy.
> > You made threats to call Colleen's licensing board. Who needs the
> > aggravation of cultic harassment?
>
> Is Sally Fields going to play the part of Colleen in the movie when it
> comes out? <smile> Steve did what he did because colleen was clearly
> establishing herself as therapist on this group and trying to drum up
> business for her anticult counseling based on her negative experiences
> in Eckankar.
Oh I wasn't aware Steve actually sent a letter to anybody about Colleen.
I was talking about some other guy who posted here in 1996 where
Runfeldt wrote a letter to the guys teacher and complained that this guy
was saying negative things about eckankar on a newsgroup.
So are you saying is was Steve who sent a letter to Colleens licensing board?
And to set the record straight, Colleen did not come here to drum up
business. You eckists are the ones who posted her website. The same
paranoia prevailed when Colleen was here as has been demonstrated by the
Ford book.
Many of you eckists are very reactive.
That's something that perhaps you might not understand but
> clearly the professional community would. You should look into the
> ethics for her profession before you make her the poster child here in
> the case you're building. There were clearly ethical violations that
> were forming. She should thank Steve for saving her license! I thought
> he should leave her to her own devices and hang herself with her
> behavior. Frankly it's her profession and if she is that ignorant of the
> ethics expected of her then let her learn the hard way!
You are clearly advocating an escalation in aggression here by trying to
justify Steve's deplorable actions.
This is the very thing that I think can lead to violence. You eckists
start fucking with people's livelihood and it could come back at you in
an escalating way. This is the scenario I'm trying to warn y'all about.
You don't want critics to start calling eckist's bosses and let them
know what they post and try to get them fired, do you?
See how stupid you and Rich are being.
(I can't believe any of your leaders in eckankar who are reading these
posts do not step up and express their truth about this important matter.
You have got some very misguided eckists here who are basically on a
path to physical violence happening which wouldn't be good for
eckankar's business.)
>
> > > Isn't this rather irresponsible of you to try to pass this off as common
> > > place on this group?
> >
> > Getting personal information is an eckist old trick here. This
> > threatening to call
> > other people's relatives is kind of new. You are jumping on the
> > bandwagon though and supporting these actions.
>
> What do you have to say this time about the information on my RESA's
> work number being published with remarks about having me removed from
> the path of Eckankar? Hmmmm?
It's wrong. How many times do I have to tell you. I've said this in the
past just a couple of weeks ago.
>
> > I guess you're still prone to screaming fire in a
> > > packed theatre!
> > >
> > > > It doesn't even have to be your real name, but a name
> > > > > that you chose to share these feelings under, consistently. It's making
> > > > > a connection of ownership between cause and effect, between the things
> > > > > you say and do to others in your journey. I guess tinman just couldn't
> > > > > figure that part of it out! All that tinman managed to do was go find
> > > > > someone elses words and ideas to support his desire to keep things the
> > > > > same!
> > > >
> > > > The point stands, who is making the argument does not matter one at all
> > > > to the strength or weakness of the argument. That some of you eckists
> > > > can't make a strong argument and can't intimidate people from posting
> > > > here by getting personal information on them and making threats is frustrating.
> > >
> > > Gee... but you seem to favor the former high initiate over the ECKist on
> > > this group as a source of credibility. <sigh> If an argument is strong,
> > > then why do you need anticultic propoganda to attack the character of
> > > those who disagree with you?
> >
> > I don't accept the premise of your question. The cult model is useful in
> > understanding behavior of eckists.
>
> No actually because it isn't a professionally accepted model it only
> serves to disassociate the antagonists from their humanity.
We disagree. Big deal.
In fact is a
> permission for those who feel threatened and injured to go on a witch
> hunt. The APA is still looking to see if there is any evidence in this
> information that has been based solely on nonprofessional exmembers. The
> book is still out on this whole issue, lurk. That's why I can stand here
> and tell you that there is no science involved in the material about so
> called cults that you use as an excuse!
I never claimed it was science nor do I need it to be science in order
for the criteria cult list to be a function model.
The detrimental effects of such
> behavior based on this group of amateur theories has begun to surface
> and it's truly disconcerting to discover that to date the greatest
> abuses have come from those who buy into this pop culture of
> anticultism. You should take a look at the material surrounding that
> particular area of belief of yours. You're so prone to critical views.
I understand there are critical views of the anti-cultist positions and
that such positions can be cultic themselves. This is not news to me,
and I have written about such long before your rants about this.
>
> > > Why do you need to dehumanize those who
> > > disagree with you?
> >
> > I don't accept the premise of your question. I don't use the cult model
> > to dehumanize you. I use the cult model to explain perceptions and
> > viewpoints. My wish for you is that you be more alive when freed from
> > the limitation of cultic thinking. I like to think I'm humanizing you.
>
> You need to double check your premise here, lurk. First of all, the
> practice of disassociating the humanity of the one you disagree with is
> not based on sound science.
That's your assumption of what happens if I use the term cult and cultic
thinking. I'm using the terms in specific ways pertaining to specific
comments or behavior of eckists. I don't use the term as a general put
down to dehumanie you. I find them useful.
Perhaps you feel hurt when I use this term and feel like you are being
dehumanized. Maybe if your honest and tell me it hurts your feelings, I
will stop using the term.
No where is it considered appropriate to
> behave in this manner outside of perhaps cultures that are being charged
> with human rights violations.
Behave in what manner? Calling a group cultic or it's members engaged in
cultic thinking? I think it is highly appropriate to your a criteria
list to evaluate a group and it members. It is clear what the criteria
is and it can be debated by all concerned.
> And secondly where would you place the
> onus of responsibility on the abuser here?
I don't agree that calling a group cultic or pointing to cultic thinking
or behavior is abusive especially when I post the criteria list and
defined it for you some fifty time. It is making good us of a model.
I understand you feel abused....but then, that is an opportunity for you
to track your emotions and try to control them instead of trying to
control others.
Might makes right? Your
> answers are so absolute that it justifies you treating others in the
> manner that you do? This reeks of manifest destiny, lurk. And that's a
> personal side note. <shudder> I refuse to be removed from my beliefs and
> sent to your white mans schools. <grinning> Nope.... that doesn't buy it
> these days, lurk.
Being a little dramatic here, don't you think.
>
> Your beliefs in the anticult material gives you permission to
> disassociate ECKists from their humanity. That is a first step in cultic
> behavior, according to the true science that exists on the subject.
> That's what the germans did, remember?
That is the first step in cultic behavior and is why I am pointing out
to you
and Rich that disassociating critics from their humanity by feeling it
is alright to post address and phone information with the hopes that
someone calls their kids and wife to harass them about what a critic
posts.
Again, the sequence is this: Critic post a viewpoint or says something
that and eckist considers abusive. Eckist feels hurt or angry and tries
to deal with such emotions by controlling the critic. When that fails,
the eckist feels justified in going outside the group to enlist the help
of relatives to shame the critic into doing what the eckist wants. As
Cher said earlier "clean up" their behavior. See how absurd this
sequence is? (As I said it applies to critics as well).
Why not skip all the bullshit control stuff and simple be responsible
for your emotional reactions and then be in your truth about it and
express it?
>
> > This only proves a lack of accountability in such
> > > instances. There is no incentive to accept responsibility for ones
> > > behavior once anonymity is abused. Where are the checks and balances for
> > > that person?
> >
> > Eckists use there real names here and still don't accept responsibility
> > for their actions and comments so I don't think the name has anything to
> > do with this. Another bogus argument.
>
> According to whom?
Obviously me. I show you samples along the way if you want to me too.
> Those who set out to change others rather than share
> ideas and viewpoints? Hmmm?
Ask yourself who is working hard to try to change others. Someone who
post strong arguments on a newsgroup and cusses, or someone who post address
information, or writes licensing boards.
See where you're mistaken?
See this slips back into the confusion of
> ideas with people. Not helpful.
>
> > > There is the block sender list. That of course is seen as
> > > censoring others instead of a healthy use of boundaries.
> >
> > I don't see it as censoring, I see it as an eckist choice. Kind of
> > childish, but nonetheless a choice.
>
> See it anyway you chose to, to get through your day. The fact is, it's a
> process of setting boundaries based on behavior, not ideas. And the
> confusion of these two is no longer an acceptable excuse.
Cher, you are mistaken me for someone who cares whether you or anyone
else used the block sender list. I never said is was censoring so stop
acting like I said this. Gawd. I said through this whole post to ignore
what you find offensive, I never claimed block sender is censoring.
Lurk
@aloha.net Rich
"Sean" <lifeswha...@earth.org> wrote
> "Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote
Good on ya mate! I'll be out there on the Pacific Blue in about two
hours. The Humpbacks have just started to come back. Should be a sweet
day.
Sean
>
> "Sean" <lifeswha...@earth.org> wrote ...
> >
> > many good points in this post Cher but this one really sums it up the
grand
> > canyon......
> >
> > Lurk
> > > This particular thread is about poster who post anonymously and make
> > > arguments and how eckists try to use the fact they posted anonymously,
> > > as a refutation of such argument. It is clearly not.
> >
> > Cher
> > I agree it clearly is not. It's about the behavior of those who post
> > here under the premise that any behavior is acceptable because they are
> > posting anonymously. That's what the discussion is about. Your right to
> > argue till you turn blue in the face is not threatened lurk. Calm down.
> > It's your behavior in arguing that's the issue here. There is nothing
> > that you can say on this group now that clearly isn't available on the
> > web from countless years of detractors posts. Same old arguments too. So
> > what makes you think that by saying this abuse of anonymity is somehow
> > supposed to stop you from your choices? It's about accountability for
> > your behavior, not your views. These are clearly different issues.
>
>
> Good choice Sean. And thanks for the heads up. I skipped over
> that post along with most of the other Cher/Lurk exchanges. (Gone
> from the n.g. for less than two weeks and over 1800 unread
> posts ...)
>
ROTFLMAO ........... 1800 oh my god , how many were mine, and I was going to
cut down <vbg>
Sometimes there's way too many with Lurk .......... but the last couple of
days especially Cher has been on a roll with him. It's quite impressive
actually.
> What this place needs is a Readers Digest condensed version
> that skips over all the unnecessary fluff and just prints the interesting
> "heart of the matter" stuff.
>
No worries, we have an a.r.e. postage stamp coming out this Xmas! Can you
wait?
LOL
> Oh, and the funny stuff too.
>
Ah, now you're getting serious .......... that's leather bound coming out at
Easter. Get your submissions in now!
I'm getting a cover page photo done with Sam in his Hutterite Stand Up
Comedy regailia .....
Place your orders here : www.the-higher-plagarist-society.com
;-))
PS welcome back, you didn't miss anything.
>
>
>
Sean
No worries, he hadn't been using his "...." much anyway apparently. <G>
[sorry sam, couldn't resist]
>
>
>
arelurker
arelurker
Sean wrote:
>
> And critics may not want their personal information posted because they are
> about to catch a plane and fly to MN to wreak their insane version of
> justice upon Eckankar and it's leaders ...........................
I think you are projecting the eckist aggression onto critic here Sean.
Most of the serious aggression on this newsgroup if from eckists who can't
control what people say here so that they they have to take matters into
their own hands by threatening to call people's children or posting
their address information, or writing letters to licensing boards, etc.
Many of you eckists are fucking nuts.
>
> Luckily, when this actually DID happen, after one such unstable person spent
> some time on this newsgroup, the authorities were waiting and arrested the
> guy immediately.
As ususal Sean has his fact wrong. The guy was an eckists and thought he
was suppose to be the next living eck muster and left a threatening
message on a telephone answering machine. He wasn't posting on this
newsgroup and then made threats as you suggest.
How about retracting this one shit for brains.
>
> Now, we would not want that to happen now would we Lurk?
>
> PULL YOUR HEAD OUT YOUR ASS, and look at the REAL world, and look up the
> Patriot Act while you are at it.
<lol>
>
> It is HERE and NOW, and the level of verbal bigotry on this group by people
> like you who de-humanise civilised kind hearted ladies
Are you referring to the name game Cher invited me to play with here
where she calls me Betty and I call her CUNT? She is hardly civilized.
She is a distrubed women.
and label them
> CAPITALS, is what fuels this type of errant behaviour in the more unbalanced
> of fanatical individuals, who begin to actually believe the lies and
> misrepresetnations that you and your kind get up to here everyday about a
> simple and loving spiritual path like Eckankar.
Yeah I feel the love every day. Not! I feel Cher and Rich trying to
control their feelings by trying to control what people say. They are
disempowered people. Come to think of it, you're a disempowered little
wonk yourself.
>
> The rhetoric on this newsgroup is no better than the Prime Minister of
> Malayasia, recently telling all Muslims in the world that 1 billion of them
> can win the "war" against the Jews who are running the entire world and
> oppressing them.
Yeah... critics are just like that. You're an idiot.
>
> It is crazy, it is fanaticism, it is it is an incitment that can so easily
> lead to REAL harm to other people who are simply going about there lives in
> a balanced and lawful manner.
You're are a little thinned skin don't you think?
>
> You have been doing this for years, and your verbage here is second only to
> Alf. Some company you keep. I think it is about time you just got lost and
> took your hatred, and psycho babble elsewhere, eg to a real therapist!!!
Hey Sean. FUCK OFF.
No more kid gloving you pussy eckists. In the real world people would
tell many of your eckist to fuck off as many of you unconsciously trod
on people's boundaries because you don't have a strong sense of your own
self but are simply overidentified with a chessy little religion.
Lurk
cher
Really? Then are you willing to test this and give me your mothers
address? I'm sure that she would not be surprised by what you post to
this group. It is after all, your premise that loved ones of detractors
would not be ashamed to share what they write with their loved ones. I'd
love to see this tested in real life!
> >
> > > Because of your ASSUMPTION, you and Rich believe you have some sort of
> > > leverage to stop people from saying what you consider as offensive
> > > things to eckists here.
> >
> > No, that's your ASSUMPTION. No one is trying to make you stop posting to
> > this group, only clean up your act and behave responsibly for yourselves
> > and your actions.
>
> Clean up? You mean behave and post according to whose standards? Your's
> and Rich's? I see. Thanks for revealing your agenda.
>
> >Is that too big a stretch for you, lurk?
>
> Yes, I don't live and conduct myself according your standards and
> assumptions about how I should behave.
You sure are struggling with this whole thing, lurk. My goodness.... no
one is telling you that you can't post anymore, just take ownership of
what you post. These are not my standards alone, they are reflected in
the terms of service with most ISP's and newsreaders. There is a
standard for posting, even though there is a small group that shouts
loudly and protests for freedom of speech. <smile>
> Do you see a
> > difference here? Or is this all just threats to your right to abuse
> > others at will?
>
> Again, two other assumptions you make: 1) that my posts are abusive, and
> 2) that I view them this way and therefore am afraid to tell my Mom
> about them.
>
> There is no end to your control trip you on.
I can see that you're fighting this discussion. I honestly cannot fathom
where all this fear comes from in you.
> >
> > > What you are doing here is a classic example of disempowering yourself
> > > and placing responsibility for your emotions reactions onto the
> > > anonymous poster. Here's the sequence:
> > >
> > > You don't like what anonymous posters say. You react emotionally (either
> > > unconsciously or consciously) and you want the feeling to stop. So to
> > > stop the emotion, you feel it is to try to control the person and when
> > > that doesn't work you feel it is necessary to go outside of this group
> > > and call relative in the hope of shaming an anonymous poster to stop
> > > posting whatever it is you that hooked you emotionally.
> > >
> > > Can't you see how this scheme is disempowering to you and Rich?
> >
> > Nope... that rationalization doesn't cut it.
>
> It is not a rationalization. You and Rich seem real keen on controlling
> the way people post here because you view it as abuse. Everyone has a
> different viewpoint about what constitutes abuse. Some eckists think
> posting negative information about eckankar is abusive. Some think foul
> language as abusive. In another post, you claimed that me calling you a
> knucklehead was abusive. See how varied this is. Why should the group
> live by your definition of what is abusive? You know what, we don't and
> there in lies the problem for you. You try and try to make those bad
> feelings go away by controlling others. My advice is to give it up and
> deal with your own emotions, both of you. Maybe if you both did some
> real personal growth work this would become evident to you.
All that fear and now you're trying to turn that into my psychological
problem. Hmmmm.. you do this a great deal, lurk. But it doesn't change
the fact that the discussion is on civilized behavior and taking
accountablity for what you chose to post. Not on what you are being
limited TO POST. No one is telling what to do, only that there are
boundaries of civility. That's just life in a society.
> I'm sure you worked long
> > and hard on it, but it's based on your fear of having to lose your
> > rights to abuse at will. You seem to base your belief here on the fact
> > that someone is feeling hurt by the silliness you guys post. Nothing
> > could be further from the truth.
>
> If it is true that no body's feelings are hurt by posts, then how is it abuse?
>
> You're getting flustered and contradicting yourself in the same paragraph.
Not at all. You're the one trying to make this conversation about my
emotions, instead of civilized behavior. I'm just pointing out that I
can tell when something is abusive and not be effect of that abuse.
> But the fact is, any civilized group of
> > people can decide that a behavior pattern has gone too far and ask that
> > it be placed back in the hands of those who show no awareness of their
> > behavior.
>
> You can decide whatever you want, but I and others are free to post
> negative stuff about eckankar, are free to call you a knucklehead if I
> want. Quit trying to control free expression here and the way people
> behave.
How can I control anything, lurk? This is discussion. A conversation.
Why are you so threatened by discussion?
> >
> > > Now on the other hand, the sequence I outlined can be applied to
> > > anonymous critics: They read something of an eckist that they consider
> > > offensive or evokes some kind of hurt feeling and then instead of
> > > dealing with their own hurt by acknowledging it and dealing with it, or
> > > searching for what hooked them, they unload on an eckist. (Eckists do
> > > the same thing.)
> > >
> > > This is sequence I just describe constitutes most of the discussions on
> > > a.r.e. that are of a disagreeing nature. This is one kind of interpretation
> > > that occurs here.
> >
> > Truly you seem to have this all worked out in your head to justify your
> > behavior on this group.
>
> Your response here is telling me you are unwilling or unable to speak
> seriously about quality of exchanges here on a.r.e.. I fairly present
> the dynamic that occurs with both eckists and critics that leads to
> rancor and you simply dismiss it off handedly.
Actually what you have shared here is a tension at the thought of giving
up the right to be post in an abusive manner without ownership of or
accountablity? What is so frightening about setting limits for yourself
as to how far you're willing to escalate attacks on people instead of
sticking to the subject of the issues at hand?
> I'm attempting to be objective here....but you seem to be open to such dialog.
>
> But it doesn't change the fact that you behave,
> > and you own that behavior and it's consequences. There is no
> > rationalization for or justification of that behavior outside of your
> > choices and apparently your inability to assume responsibility for such.
>
> All you are doing here is confirming the dynamic I pointed out that is
> contributing to the rancor.
Why is it that you have to assign blame? Disassociating ECKist that you
post to here from humanity is not acceptable behavior in my opinion.
Pointing out that you are leaning on faulty and archaic materials from
the anticult community and that these tactics dehumanize the people you
are communicating with intentionally is hardly ignoring objectivity. In
fact I'm being very objective in sticking to the fact that this is a
choice, and not about you as a person. See how this is done, lurk?
> >
> > > But for you to feel justified in taking this outside this newsgroup to
> > > call people's relatives is an escalation of the usual aggression here.
> > > My view is that disagreements and volatile exchanges need to stay in
> > > this group. To call people's mothers or threaten to call people's
> > > mothers or kids is escalation of aggression. When aggression begins to
> > > escalate, it usually starts to take a life of its who. The possibility
> > > exist where physical violence will be seen as justified if and when an
> > > eckist starts calling someone's kids to talk to them about what they
> > > post. Again, this is not a veiled threat by me, but is what I consider a
> > > logical progression from escalation aggression outside this newsgroup.
> > >
> > > Do you and Rich really want to eckists and critics to start calling
> > > people and try to get them fired from their jobs, or call their mothers
> > > or whatever?
> >
> > What a short memory you have. Who was it that posted the link the work
> > phone number to my RESA clearly stating that as an ECKist I needed to be
> > stopped! <smile>
>
> I thought is was an eckist who did that. And I'm record as having stated
> that I disagree with that whether it was an eckists or not.
And felt no problems with seeing it as a bad thing which must have been
done by an ECKist. I see a pattern in this.
> > That just smacks of double standards on your part. Have
> > you gotten so comfortable in talking out of both sides of your mouth? My
> > phone number was published to this group! So was Windy's!
>
> I don't agree with that either. See what Rich's and your behave
> inspires? That's what I'm talking about...the escalation thing.
Exactly what in my behavior are you looking at?
> What's next with your nuts? Calling each others employers to see if we
> can get each other fired?
That's uncalled for, lurk. Why would any civilized human being do such a
thing? That was by the way, your imaginative suggestion, remember?
> Do I see you
> > acknowledging this reality here? Nope... just pissing and moaning over
> > the possibility that your mom might get a call some day. <smile> That's
> > a wake up call, lurk. Clean it up. <smile>
>
> Cher I don't think any critic should post address or phone information
> on newsgroup. I've said this before but apparently you feel a strong
> need to act as though I haven't.
Fine, then we agree on one point. That means we're getting somewhere
here. I know that I didn't like it when it happened to me or when my
RESA's information was posted and I'm sure that Windy didn't like it
either.
> >
> > > See how absurd your justification for calling is? See where it could lead?
> > >
> > > I understand you and Rich feel extremely disempowered here because you
> > > can't control and dominant critics, but that is your problem you need to
> > > deal with. Advocating an escalation, I fear, will not be healthy for
> > > either one of you or to eckankar's reputation.
> >
> > Poor lurk, so stuck in your own little viewpoint incapable of seeing the
> > bigger picture here. Such a victims stance from you.
>
> I think my stance is a realistic stance. Escalation takes on a life of
> its own. I think you and Rich should seriously reconsider your
> positions. I think you and Rich should learn to control you own emotions
> instead of trying to control other people and disempowering yourself in
> the process.
Pardon me? You still chose to believe that this is a control trip? I've
taken great patience in showing you that your view of posting to this ng
as a wild west fantasy is not the real world. There are consequences for
every action lurk, regardless of whether you feel safe hiding your
identity or not. Taking that ownership of your actions is not a
restriction, but a civilized mature manner of behavior. You seem truly
frightened at the thought.
> No one cares about
> > the things detractors post here ad nauseam. They are deep in the
> > archives for anyone who's interested in that sort of thing. You don't
> > even need to be here any longer.... you've flooded this group with
> > negative propaganda over the years. Your job is actually done. Being
> > here is just a choice now... not an obligation. <smile>
>
> Too bad that you are not responding to the substance of my comments. I
> am seriously reaching out to you and Rich to put an end to the
> escalation you two are instigating and advocating. Seems you are
> unavailable for cool headed discourse.
Escalation? You truly do feel threatened by the idea of civilized
discourse, of personal ownership of what you post, of accountability.
Why is this?
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Love
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Michael
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well that's the point of the thing, isn't it? Anonymous posters seem to
> > > > > > abuse their entitlement of suffering through projection to the point
> > > > > > where they have slipped into an abusive pattern of posting on this
> > > > > > group. Ideas are no longer what matters,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm an anonymous poster and I keep asking you in other threads to
> > > > > support your claims and you refuse to.
> > > >
> > > > Excuse me? The point here is about how posting anonymously can open the
> > > > door to projecting an entitlement of suffering onto the person you're
> > > > posting to. Would you like to say something about this?
> > >
> > > I covered this above.
> >
> > No, you missed it entirely. That's why I brought it up again.
>
> Okay....
>
> The dynamic of someone feeling hurt or angry and dumping it on other
> posters happens whether people post anonymously or with their name. You
> have been dumping on people for many years and use your name. So it
> hasn't stopped you. You contradict your own viewpoint.
I am not afraid of what I share here, lurk. I take ownership of what I
post. Is there something wrong with this in your eyes? You seem to
believe that I should be ashamed of what I post here, but I'm not.
> You are taking one variable (identity) and attributing cause to that. The
> point is: whether an eckist or a critic dumps on the OTHER or not,
> whomever they dump on has a choice: To ignore or to disagree.
True, but that doesn't mean that there are no limits or ramifications
for such behavior! It isn't a right, lurk. Not for anyone.
> Posting address information with the hope that they call someone's wife
> or kids is no way to handle this.
>
> What's next? If an eckist dumps on a critic, then we should look the
> eckists up and do research and find out where they work and call there
> boss. See how absurd you people are being?
Well not as absurd as your suggestion, I can assure you! <smile> But
that's your imagination, not mine. You really seem stuck on this point
too, is there a personal significance to this particular idea that you
keep bringing up?
Again you feel threatened and attempt to make this all about me.
> That's what the discussion is about. Your right to
> > argue till you turn blue in the face is not threatened lurk. Calm down.
> > It's your behavior in arguing that's the issue here.
>
> So I'm not allow to call you a knucklehead because, as you claimed in
> another post, that is abusive? I don't agree.
Allowed? Lurk, I'm only saying that to do so is abusive in my world. It
means that calling me names to try to diminish me in an argument is not
a mature method of conversing. It is in fact not my idea of abusive,
it's commonly referred to as such in most psychological journals.
> See the difficulty in you trying to control and decide what is and is
> not abusive? That's why it is important for you to take responsibility
> for you own emotional responses instead of instead of trying to enforce
> your dubious concept of what is and is not abusive on the group.
Wow... again, so personally threatened at the idea of a ng where the
ideas are addressed and not wild insinuations about the people offering
them up. Why does this idea seem so alien to you lurk?
> There is nothing
> > that you can say on this group now that clearly isn't available on the
> > web from countless years of detractors posts. Same old arguments too.
>
> I feel I have a unique perspective on things.
Or a need that this place fulfills.
> So
> > what makes you think that by saying this abuse of anonymity is somehow
> > supposed to stop you from your choices?
>
> Asking me to post using my real name is you trying to control enforce
> your value system. I chose not to, not for the reasons you are claiming.
I'm not trying to force anything here lurk. I'm clearly and calmly
stating that if one uses their own name they then take ownership for
what they share. Just look at sharon for an example if this is too much
for you comprehend. She posts under her name all the time. Maybe she can
help you with this need to hide under a pseudonym in order to speak your
mind.
> > It's about accountability for
> > your behavior, not your views. These are clearly different issues.
>
> yeah I'm such a bad boy... I called you a knucklehead
> and abused you.
>
> Grow up.
Well frankly I have little interest in what sort of boy you think you
are. It's the idea that you come here hiding and this gives you a false
sense of entitlement to be and behave abusively towards others. That's
the problem.
> >
> > > Perhaps if we decide to change the subject to psychology then I
> > > > might point out your need to put other people down and demonize them to
> > > > a lower status then you in need of your help?
> > >
> > > Cher you were commenting on what you see as abusive behavior on this
> > > newsgroup, so I took the opportunity to share what I see as your abusive
> > > behavior on this newsgroup. It wasn't off topic.
> >
> > Is that the going excuse of trying to make the issue instead of the
> > issue at hand?
>
> I brought this up to assert that I was not off topic as you claimed.
Whenever the person becomes the topic then it is! You don't know me. I
don't know you. As a matter of fact, I use my real name, but you have no
name except for the one I gave you in order to see you as a human being
instead of an entrenched enemy. See?
> Is that how you do this sort of thing? Odd... that shows
> > up in all the data on line about verbally abusive people, that very self
> > same excuse. Strange. You should look it up.
>
> If you want me to be accountable for what you see is my abusive
> behavior, then point out what you see as abusive and I'll give you an
> accounting. You don't need to call my spouse or kids to get an
> accounting. Just ask! See how easy that is?
Pardon me lurk but sharing your posts with your mother will solve this
nicely. I already have children and am not seeking another son to raise.
This is about you learning to be accountable for your own behavior, not
me taking up babysitting.
> >
> > > That's an important
> > > > symptom, if that's what you'd like to look at!
> > > >
> > > > > Like
> > > > > > children with no supervisision, the misbehaving has lost all boundaries
> > > > > > and repercussions. In short, the most uncivilized thing to be these days
> > > > > > appears to be an exmember of any path!
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you feelings hurt Cher?
> > > >
> > > > Why do you need me to feel hurt, lurk? What I've shared is human well
> > > > being in action. Do you see this as injured in some way? Why?
> > >
> > > I asked if your feelings are hurt because you keep saying things that
> > > lead me to believe that.
> >
> > Again, you try to fix this issue of accountability onto me.
>
> Shouldn't you be accountable for your feelings? I'm certainly not going
> to be accountable for your feelings as much as you try to shift
> responsibility to me (See the sequence I mentioned earlier in this post).
This might be true if I leaned on anticult propaganda to label and
demonize people who post here. I haven't seen this in my behavior,
though on occassion it is difficult to remember who it is I'm posting to
when the party line is similiar from poster to poster. See, I don't
think that calling a whole group of people detractors is the same as
referring to people as cultheads. Detractor is actually in the
dictionary.
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/detractor
Definition:
[n] one who disparages or belittles the worth of something
Synonyms:depreciator, disparager, knocker
See Also:
backbiter, cynic, defamer, faultfinder, hatemonger, libeler, maligner,
muckraker, mudslinger, slanderer,traducer, vilifier
Granted it's not a pretty word, I suggest you try looking up the word
"cultheads" and see what you find.
Yes, actually. And I can see why.
> And to set the record straight, Colleen did not come here to drum up
> business. You eckists are the ones who posted her website. The same
> paranoia prevailed when Colleen was here as has been demonstrated by the
> Ford book.
Well lurk, the proof is in the archives. You can spin this any way that
makes you feel better but the fact of the matter is in the archives.
> Many of you eckists are very reactive.
You mean like suggesting that detractors as the same as Islamic
terrorists? Is that what you mean lurk?
> That's something that perhaps you might not understand but
> > clearly the professional community would. You should look into the
> > ethics for her profession before you make her the poster child here in
> > the case you're building. There were clearly ethical violations that
> > were forming. She should thank Steve for saving her license! I thought
> > he should leave her to her own devices and hang herself with her
> > behavior. Frankly it's her profession and if she is that ignorant of the
> > ethics expected of her then let her learn the hard way!
>
> You are clearly advocating an escalation in aggression here by trying to
> justify Steve's deplorable actions.
Your opinion. But the fact is, she was definitely breaking her own
ethical guidelines. Some professionals take that sort of thing very
seriously and I can see why!
> This is the very thing that I think can lead to violence. You eckists
> start fucking with people's livelihood and it could come back at you in
> an escalating way. This is the scenario I'm trying to warn y'all about.
Violence? Like the detractor who made death threats against Sri Harold
and Peter Skelsky? Is that what you mean? This is what I'm talking
about, this sort of irresponsible slander to all ECKist because you are
afraid of posting to a public newsgroup and being held accountable for
your actions.
> You don't want critics to start calling eckist's bosses and let them
> know what they post and try to get them fired, do you?
>
> See how stupid you and Rich are being.
>
> (I can't believe any of your leaders in eckankar who are reading these
> posts do not step up and express their truth about this important matter.
> You have got some very misguided eckists here who are basically on a
> path to physical violence happening which wouldn't be good for
> eckankar's business.)
Now that is what is commonly called slander, lurk. Plain and simple. And
unfortunately this is the sort of thing that you probably wouldn't want
anyone to see you doing if you had accountablity for what you post here.
Shouting fire in a room filled with people is a sign of immaturity.
No actually you are afraid of losing the right you believe you have of
treating people like objects.
> In fact is a
> > permission for those who feel threatened and injured to go on a witch
> > hunt. The APA is still looking to see if there is any evidence in this
> > information that has been based solely on nonprofessional exmembers. The
> > book is still out on this whole issue, lurk. That's why I can stand here
> > and tell you that there is no science involved in the material about so
> > called cults that you use as an excuse!
>
> I never claimed it was science nor do I need it to be science in order
> for the criteria cult list to be a function model.
Well it's under scrutiny now by science. In fact I posted a link to an
article that you might be interested in reading.
> The detrimental effects of such
> > behavior based on this group of amateur theories has begun to surface
> > and it's truly disconcerting to discover that to date the greatest
> > abuses have come from those who buy into this pop culture of
> > anticultism. You should take a look at the material surrounding that
> > particular area of belief of yours. You're so prone to critical views.
>
> I understand there are critical views of the anti-cultist positions and
> that such positions can be cultic themselves. This is not news to me,
> and I have written about such long before your rants about this.
Was that before or after the lastest incidence of referring to ECKists
as cultheads?
> >
> > > > Why do you need to dehumanize those who
> > > > disagree with you?
> > >
> > > I don't accept the premise of your question. I don't use the cult model
> > > to dehumanize you. I use the cult model to explain perceptions and
> > > viewpoints. My wish for you is that you be more alive when freed from
> > > the limitation of cultic thinking. I like to think I'm humanizing you.
> >
> > You need to double check your premise here, lurk. First of all, the
> > practice of disassociating the humanity of the one you disagree with is
> > not based on sound science.
>
> That's your assumption of what happens if I use the term cult and cultic
> thinking. I'm using the terms in specific ways pertaining to specific
> comments or behavior of eckists. I don't use the term as a general put
> down to dehumanie you. I find them useful.
I'm sure you find them useful, mostly to put people down and dismiss
their ideas.
> Perhaps you feel hurt when I use this term and feel like you are being
> dehumanized. Maybe if your honest and tell me it hurts your feelings, I
> will stop using the term.
This is a sick assumption on your part, lurk.
> No where is it considered appropriate to
> > behave in this manner outside of perhaps cultures that are being charged
> > with human rights violations.
>
> Behave in what manner? Calling a group cultic or it's members engaged in
> cultic thinking? I think it is highly appropriate to your a criteria
> list to evaluate a group and it members. It is clear what the criteria
> is and it can be debated by all concerned.
You dehumanize an entire group of people via a check list that no one
other than the anticult community accepts as valid and you don't see a
problem with this?
cher
> I don't agree that calling a group cultic or pointing to cultic thinking
> or behavior is abusive especially when I post the criteria list and
> defined it for you some fifty time. It is making good us of a model.
Of a model that is flawed. The research is coming out. <smile> But what
I'm saying here is that you use this as a weapon on this group, just as
sharon did earlier and joe before her. That is the very thing that has
researchers taking a long hard look at what side of that equation is
being cultic in their behavior.
> I understand you feel abused....but then, that is an opportunity for you
> to track your emotions and try to control them instead of trying to
> control others.
Again, you have a great fear of being controled don't you? No one is
controling you lurk... just discussing issues.
> Might makes right? Your
> > answers are so absolute that it justifies you treating others in the
> > manner that you do? This reeks of manifest destiny, lurk. And that's a
> > personal side note. <shudder> I refuse to be removed from my beliefs and
> > sent to your white mans schools. <grinning> Nope.... that doesn't buy it
> > these days, lurk.
>
> Being a little dramatic here, don't you think.
Not at all. Certainly no more so then you trying to sell the idea that
"ECKists" are violent. <sigh>
> >
> > Your beliefs in the anticult material gives you permission to
> > disassociate ECKists from their humanity. That is a first step in cultic
> > behavior, according to the true science that exists on the subject.
> > That's what the germans did, remember?
>
> That is the first step in cultic behavior and is why I am pointing out
> to you
> and Rich that disassociating critics from their humanity by feeling it
> is alright to post address and phone information with the hopes that
> someone calls their kids and wife to harass them about what a critic
> posts.
>
> Again, the sequence is this: Critic post a viewpoint or says something
> that and eckist considers abusive. Eckist feels hurt or angry and tries
> to deal with such emotions by controlling the critic. When that fails,
> the eckist feels justified in going outside the group to enlist the help
> of relatives to shame the critic into doing what the eckist wants. As
> Cher said earlier "clean up" their behavior. See how absurd this
> sequence is? (As I said it applies to critics as well).
>
> Why not skip all the bullshit control stuff and simple be responsible
> for your emotional reactions and then be in your truth about it and
> express it?
This is certainly a fine example of what I've been talking about so far,
lurk. Thanks!
> >
> > > This only proves a lack of accountability in such
> > > > instances. There is no incentive to accept responsibility for ones
> > > > behavior once anonymity is abused. Where are the checks and balances for
> > > > that person?
> > >
> > > Eckists use there real names here and still don't accept responsibility
> > > for their actions and comments so I don't think the name has anything to
> > > do with this. Another bogus argument.
> >
> > According to whom?
>
> Obviously me. I show you samples along the way if you want to me too.
>
> > Those who set out to change others rather than share
> > ideas and viewpoints? Hmmm?
>
> Ask yourself who is working hard to try to change others. Someone who
> post strong arguments on a newsgroup and cusses, or someone who post address
> information, or writes licensing boards.
>
> See where you're mistaken?
I love to dig addresses. It gives me something to do when you're trying
to argue one of your points, that's been posted so often. I don't see it
as a negative thing. But I guess it's threatening to you.
> See this slips back into the confusion of
> > ideas with people. Not helpful.
> >
> > > > There is the block sender list. That of course is seen as
> > > > censoring others instead of a healthy use of boundaries.
> > >
> > > I don't see it as censoring, I see it as an eckist choice. Kind of
> > > childish, but nonetheless a choice.
> >
> > See it anyway you chose to, to get through your day. The fact is, it's a
> > process of setting boundaries based on behavior, not ideas. And the
> > confusion of these two is no longer an acceptable excuse.
>
> Cher, you are mistaken me for someone who cares whether you or anyone
> else used the block sender list. I never said is was censoring so stop
> acting like I said this. Gawd. I said through this whole post to ignore
> what you find offensive, I never claimed block sender is censoring.
No, joe did. And once he's said it a few more times, you'll swear it is
gospel!
cher
arelurker wrote:
>
> ..that are grounded in reality of observing eckist behavior.
>
> lurk wrote, cher reposted:
Mingo Grant
cher
<wink>
Sam
Ken wrote in message ...
>
>"Sean" <lifeswha...@earth.org> wrote ...
>>
>> "Ken" <kah...@attachments.att.net> wrote in message
>> news:AlWmb.15588$Ec1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> > Hey Sam,
>> >
>> > Tried to email you but it bounced.
>> >
>> > Do you have a new address?
>>
>> yes he does, the dreaded spammers got him by the ....... !
>>
>> I can send it thru if he doesn't pop in ken, ......... unless he's block
>> sendered ya! <G>
>
>
>I'm sure he'll be around shortly. Condolences about his .... ;-)
>
>Thanks, Sean.
>
Sean:
If you don't mind, forward my email through to Ken. I don't know for how
long I'll have my current ISP.
I have his real email somewhere on Zip disk, which I haven't installled on
my laptop.
Once my current ISP is gone, I'll open a new account via our local phone
company. They also host my website, so I'll keep it up and running for as
long as I can. I haven't changed the email on my website because I don't
want any more spam.
My advice to all: Don't opt in to any email service. Yes, they say that they
don't sell emails to other spammers. That, I believe, is a crock. It is such
a relief not to get all these spam emails.
I have not sent Ken or anybody to the block sender list. I only respond to
what is useful to me anymore. There are still things I'd like to say here at
a.r.e., but I don't see what the point would be. If something is worth
saying, I've probably already said it somewhere, somehow along the way.
Sam
MICHAEL
"Sam" <S...@here.ne.t> wrote in message
>
> MICHAEL wrote in message ...
> >But Sam, when Alf was calling Bee a Slut, and saying she enjoyed being
> >gangbanged by bikies, etc. you seemed to think this was fine... He said
it
> >many times, and obviously he said it vindictively...
> >
> >Why the double standard now?
>
Michael,
> I don't always respond directly to the point at a.r.e.. I don't recall
> exactly what I was refering to, but here's the DIRECT answer for the
record.
> When Alf called Bee a slut, he too was being vindictive. I apologize to
Bee
> if my point was missed.
> Maybe the problem with my posting is that I think a bit too abstractly
> sometimes. Nobody here is innocent.
> If Bee felt hurt by my response, please give her a hug for me and tell her
> that Sam never meant any harm.
>
> Love
> Sam
Will do Sam...
Wouldn't life be so much simpler if everything could be dealt with clearly,
cleanly, and directly like this?
Thank you for the courtesy, and I will forward your thoughts on.
Love
Michael
>
>
> >
> >
> >Love
> >
> >Michael
> >
> >
> >"Sam" <S...@here.ne.t> wrote in message
> >news:jyJmb.644$JN....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> >> Tin Man wrote in message
> >> <42b68019.03102...@posting.google.com>...
> >> >arelurker <arel...@charter.net> wrote in message
> >> news:<3F9A7B93...@charter.net>...
> >> >> > > Love
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Michael
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Well that's the point of the thing, isn't it? Anonymous posters
seem
> >to
> >> >> > abuse their entitlement of suffering through projection to the
point
> >> >> > where they have slipped into an abusive pattern of posting on this
> >> >> > group. Ideas are no longer what matters,
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm an anonymous poster and I keep asking you in other threads to
> >> >> support your claims and you refuse to.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> it's taking their pound of
> >> >> > flesh that brings them back here day after day. No harm no foul if
> no
> >> >> > one knows that they're behaving in such a way!
> >> >>
> >> >> Behaving what way? Offering alternative viewpoints about eckankar
that
> >> >> people can't get in eckankar.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> It has turned this group,
> >> >> > like many others on usenet, into vacuums of abusive behavior.
> >> >>
> >> >> Cher honey... You need to look at your demeanor honey. I've been
> >working
> >> >> with you on this for some time. Your tone is shamed based and
constant
> >> >> barrage of put downs and insult towards those with whom you
disagree.
> >> >> You do it so much it is a fixation in your personality.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Like
> >> >> > children with no supervisision, the misbehaving has lost all
> >boundaries
> >> >> > and repercussions. In short, the most uncivilized thing to be
these
> >> days
> >> >> > appears to be an exmember of any path!
> >> >>
> >> >> Are you feelings hurt Cher?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The strange thing is that if you put a name on your posts.... if
you
> >> >> > take ownership of the things you say then you put something of who
> >you
> >> >> > are there as well.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yeah a way for nut case eckists to track your family members down
and
> >> >> call them. Who wants that?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> It doesn't even have to be your real name, but a name
> >> >> > that you chose to share these feelings under, consistently. It's
> >making
> >> >> > a connection of ownership between cause and effect, between the
> >things
> >> >> > you say and do to others in your journey. I guess tinman just
> >couldn't
> >> >> > figure that part of it out! All that tinman managed to do was go
> find
> >> >> > someone elses words and ideas to support his desire to keep things
> >the
> >> >> > same!
> >> >>
> >> >> The point stands, who is making the argument does not matter one at
> all
> >> >> to the strength or weakness of the argument. That some of you
eckists
> >> >> can't make a strong argument and can't intimidate people from
posting
> >> >> here by getting personal information on them and making threats is
> >> frustrating.
> >> >>
> >> >> Lurk
> >> >
> >> >Once again the magnificent Lurk hits the nail right on the head. The
> >> >Usual Suspects have long ago given up making reasonable responses to
> >> >eckankar criticism and are well into their strategy of header tracking
> >> >and intimidation. When you have no credible defense, always attack the
Sean
> arelurker wrote:
<snip>
LURK:
> > > > The mistake you are making here is you ASSUME that anonymous posters
> > > > believe the way you do about what they post. Anonymous posters may
not
> > > > have a problem with revealing to their Moms or Children that they
call
> > > > somone on a newsgroup a cult puppy.
CHER:
> > > Gee... I'd love to see the proof of that statement! LOL..... nice
> > > rationalization!
> >
LURK:
> > Pointing out your assumption is not my rationalization.
>
CHER:
> Really? Then are you willing to test this and give me your mothers
> address? I'm sure that she would not be surprised by what you post to
> this group. It is after all, your premise that loved ones of detractors
> would not be ashamed to share what they write with their loved ones. I'd
> love to see this tested in real life!
>
SEAN:
Hey me too, even just one single day of "real life" on a.r.e. would be sheer
bliss.
Oops!! This is real life. <G>
You do see some funny things written here though?
Love,
Katchu Reelsoon. ;-)))
MICHAEL
I can see the headers now...
Humour in Uniformity
Word of the Decade... Flog
Plagiarism... Is it a Crime
Laughter, the best of the mediocre
Dialogue... What no one ever tells you! (I like that one)
More??
Love
Michael
>
>
>
>
Sam
More for the record:
1. Sam replied to Alf the way he did in relation to Bee was to try soften
his heart and create some sort of balance for the group consciousness. Sam
knows Alf doesn't mince words, although his words border on the abusive
towards Eckists. Yet he also realizes that Alf has a good side. Sam has
appealed to both his bad and good side. If Sam tells someone to fuck off,
people will typically respond in the same fashion. It is human nature, pure
and simple.
Observe what happened yesterday. Sharon says to Sam: "Fuck off, asswipe."
Sam replies: "And a good day to you too, Sharon."
In the next post to Sam, Sharon wants to buy Sam's cookbooks, which will not
be available for much longer due to Sam's financial struggles. So it shows
that Sharon does in fact have remorse for what she's said to Sam in hell. I
too have deep regret for not following my good advice and simply gotten the
hell out of a.r.e. sooner. Yet, I have to convince myself somehow that it
was all worth it.
2. Sam did in fact encourage Bee with her music.
These are the facts.
LOVE
SAM
@aloha.net Rich
"Sean" <lifeswha...@earth.org> wrote
> "Cultbuster" <jam...@are.com> wrote
> >
> > Rich wrote:
> >
> > >Revealing their identity and exemplfying with their own words and
> > >behavior is not an attack stategy. For these truths to intimidates
> > >them, they must feel guilty or afraid of accountability for their
> > >actions. It's just the quickest way of providing real information
for
> > >those that may not yet be able to see thru the speciousness of who
they
> > >are really dealing with.
> > >
>
> For slow learners: with a little help from Alfie
> .......................................
>
> > OK Wiseless Attention Seeking Soul,
> > Would you like MY phone number and address, Road Runner? Can't give
you my
> mothers, she died 23 years ago.
> > Y'know Alf, I don't get this whole thing. It's not so much the
exposure
> > of where people live and how to contact them, but how this changing
of
> "false/anonymous poster information" is a tool to intimidate, trick,
> manipulate, bait,
> test, and confuse genuine posters, both eckists and visitors-lurkers
alike.
>
> Not to mention the false pretences that there are dozens of detractors
here
> when really it's a tiny pack of the same old fanatical has-beens.
>
> > Did you ever think that people
> > simply like to get it straight and honest down the line, irrspective
of
> anyone's personal views about Eckankar, and don't need assholes like
you
> manipulating them endlessly?
>
> > Sometimes I think you'd like to get your hands around an Eckist's
neck and
> > strangle them for being so independent as to make a choice that was
> different than your own. Not everyone is into thuggish brawls in the
lot
> outside the local saloon bar and think of it as a fun night out, let
alone
> with being threatened with violence if ever you were to come across
them on
> the street, which you have repeatedly threatened people with when it
gets
> all a bit too difficult for you.
>
> Truth is, this is
> > the only way you can get even... by playing hide and seek, trick or
treat.
> Well kids play those games Alf, are you a kid? You are just a short
> > little impotent upstart who finally found an opportunity to be
noticed
> publicly without the risk of being arrested again! Rich obtained YOUR
phone
> number by your own foolishness in playing a game of "dare" that
backfired in
> your face big time! Do you copy your posts to this newsgroup so your
mum can
> read them every Sunday morning with her pot of tea and think what a
sweet
> son she brought into the world?
>
> > Your scheme to make Rich look a fool by daring him to ring you when
your
> number was unlisted is what ended up making you look like the fool
> instead!!! It backfired. And BIG TIME!
>
> Tell me you didn't lie thru your teeth to your own mother about this
when it
> happened, and I'll tell you, you are still a liar!!! So who's the fool
here?
> Smart asses get busted all the time because they think they are so
damn
> smart, when really they can't see the consequences past the length of
their
> own dick. This is a classic case of why amateur criminals end up in
jail
> everyday ...... they just can't think ahead and cover all the bases.
>
> This is the real problem here isn't it? You are still as pissed as
hell that
> you made a complete fool out of yourself ........... you 'thought' he
> wouldn't find your unlisted number and HE DID! You said, "ring me",
and HE
> DID!
>
> But that isn't Rich fault, only dumb people blame smart people for
their own
> stupidity and lack of foresight. People bitch about the police all the
time
> about that one.
>
> You know he was nice to your mother, you know he didn't tell stories
about
> you, you know he didn't blow your cover with your mum about the low
life
> scum sucking abuse to pan out to women especially on this newsgroup.
He
> reached out to you as an equal and you have been shafting ever since,
and
> still today arer paying out on him, becuase of yuor own lack of
foresight
> and intelligence.
>
> YOU didn't think it thru. YOU screwed up, not Rich. But that isn't a
crime,
> that's just a mistake, everyone makes mistakes. YOUR problem is still
not
> seeing it, still not having the integrity of a real man to apologise
for
> blaming Rich for years on end for your OWN DUMB MISTAKE. That's the
problem
> here, not the fact that Rich made a simple phone call you foolishly
dared
> him to make.
>
> And Rich has never gone back to your mother and told her the honest
truth
> about her son either. You write what you write, nobody makes you do
it.
> Please dare me or ask me to print out your posts about Bee from the
other
> month and I'll mail them to your mother. Maybe it's about time she
fully
> realised what an absolute gutless low life of a man her son has turned
out
> to be?
>
> That's the REAL issue here, it's got nothing to do with Rich's
behaviour, he
> behaved honourably and followed thru with his agreement. You are the
one
> with the character defects and you've been been trying to pass that
buck
> onto Rich now for friggin years, you obviously still don't get it! It
ain't
> rocket science. Any street thug worth his salt would work this one out
in a
> flash ......... bikers included.
>
> It just ain't going to stick bucko.
>
> You went the extra mile and went on a fanatics
> > "Mission From God" to play "Big Tough Daddy" with Rich by trying to
> outsmart him and thinking "Let's see, how can I waste this guy's time
and
> teach him a lesson?".
>
> > Remember that you are the one who imagined he'd never find it, and
he was
> on the phone to you within 30 minutes of doing a bit of basic research
and
> creative thinking on his feet. Rich has told this group a thousand
times and
> posted the information hundreds of times of how he found the listing
of your
> mothers phone under the name "Alfred Radzik" in "New Jersey" !!!
> ............. now excuse me bucko, but what on earth do you think that
> suggests, even to the dumbest person on earth?
>
> Maybe you expect Ford, or David Lane, or Lurk, or Sharon, or whoever
of the
> long list of die hard detractors on this group will pat you on the
back for
> doing such a great job of being a snake?
> > But remember, if you don't change your behaviour, someone might turn
up
> one day and re-adjust your life forever. Bikers don't screw around
with dead
> weights, and none of these other guys on the ng are going to be there
to
> back you up. Your imaginary friends here care zilch for slow witted
grunts
> like you my boy. Think about that before you respond.
>
> Life is full of choices Alf, and we get lots of second chances before
we are
> all finally pushing up the daises. It's a simple choice to apologise
to
> Rich, and every other person on this group who you have cruelly
insulted,
> threatened and verbally abused over the years [especially the mothers]
and
> be a real man.
>
> Then let it go and get on with your life. The freedom is worth the
humility.
I think he's hopeless. This scumbag did in fact write me privately
several years ago at two different times. He feigned being apologic and
nice, and promised that he'd stop his behavior. But a few weeks later,
each time, there he was again, under a different pseudo, being abusive,
swearing, insulting, lying about me, lying about Eckankar and every
Eckist in this NG.
It's actually sad since he's likely a very tortured individual finding
ways to act out his hurt, get attention, never seeing that he's cutting
off his nose to spite his face. I feel sorry for him.
@aloha.net Rich
"Sean" <lifeswha...@earth.org> wrote
Here's some I haven't posted before:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A52723856
http://makeashorterlink.com/?U13725856
A search would turn up every Eckist that every bothered to try and
engage him in a reasonable discussion, saying the same things to him.
whitefeather
> > Revealing their identity and exemplfying with their own words and
> > behavior is not an attack stategy. For these truths to intimidates
> > them, they must feel guilty or afraid of accountability for their
> > actions. It's just the quickest way of providing real information for
> > those that may not yet be able to see thru the speciousness of who they
> > are really dealing with.
>
> There are lots of reasons why a critic does not want their identity
> revealed and it is not necessary being ashamed of what they post as you
> and Cher have suggested.
>
The throw away e-mail accounts, and keeping our ID's private might
have something to do with the fact that, as what happened to me
recently, some of the eckthugs contacted yahoo and had my account
shut down for posting outside of the terms of service agreement....
LOL, so if they aren't worried about us ex eckies what do you call
that? I can and will come up with new accounts, and new ID's as
often as I need to....
Hey any ex eckies listen to Harold's talk over the weekend? Gosh
does he sound like he is going off the deep end or what? Lack of
focus, and .... gesh where was the words of WISDOM, from the Wizard?
Oh I forgot he talks in parables, and a lowly execkie wouldn't see it
for what it really is/was? Any one have a bet who the next LIVING eck
master might be?
cher
group you set up on yahoogroups? Could it be that this is directly
related to your problem? It's one thing to come here and claim that some
ECKist did you wrong, like a merit badge to victimology, but another
thing to be authentic enough to be honest about what actually happened.
I would imagine that ownership of that youth group was likely the main
issue here. But that's just a guess from having moderated so many groups
over the years. Perhaps you could offer more information then just "some
of the eckthugs contacted yahoo and had my account shut down for posting
aware of yahoo as an email source, and they seldom take such actions
unless there's a real good reason for it. That's why I'm guessing this
would be about the youth group.
An important factor here for those who don't realize it. No ECK related
mailing list would have to bother contacting yahoo if you were
misbehaving on a list. The format for dealing with this is to simply ban
your email addy. I don't think that being banned from a group
automatically brings your account under suspicion from what I've seen.
But if it does, then that would be the most likely answer. The other
possibility might be the ECK related youth group you set up and owned.
Yahoo takes children very seriously. Anyone who messes with a list for
children gets a special second look by yahoo no matter what the
subjective reasoning might be. They are very fair on this subject and
act quickly.
That would be directly linked to your behavior and certainly not on the
basis of a complaint. For those who don't know, it would take many many
complaints to get a notice from yahoo. Any moderator of a group can tell
you this. In fact you were a moderator and should know this already. So
I wonder why the necessity for the "eckthugs" nonsense. No one honestly
cares what you're doing Liz. It isn't as if there is any discussion
about you leaving on any of the lists.... it just wasn't a topic once
you signed off of HuChat. I don't know how you're handling your
friendships behind the scenes but i can tell you that once you were
gone, that was the end of the story.
cher
LOL... well it seems that it's pretty easy for lurk to make such broad
sweeping statements on the issue but no means of proving his statement.
Kind of stuck on that whole aspect of "we're proud of what we post here
daily". <smile>
Sean
"whitefeather" <creative...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:52cb182d.03102...@posting.google.com...
> arelurker <arel...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:<3F9BE0E4...@charter.net>...
> > > Revealing their identity and exemplfying with their own words and
> > > behavior is not an attack stategy. For these truths to intimidates
> > > them, they must feel guilty or afraid of accountability for their
> > > actions. It's just the quickest way of providing real information for
> > > those that may not yet be able to see thru the speciousness of who
they
> > > are really dealing with.
> >
> Lurk wrote:
>
> > There are lots of reasons why a critic does not want their identity
> > revealed and it is not necessary being ashamed of what they post as you
> > and Cher have suggested.
> >
>
> The throw away e-mail accounts, and keeping our ID's private might
> have something to do with the fact that, as what happened to me
> recently, some of the eckthugs contacted yahoo and had my account
> shut down for posting outside of the terms of service agreement....
> LOL, so if they aren't worried about us ex eckies what do you call
> that?
Unsubstanciated innuendo .......... is this an automatic badge given to all
ex-eckist detactors?
Elizabeth, why do you have to do this? How about a a bit of evidence about
such matters that you choose to post publicly to a newsgroup, just for a bit
of maturity for a change.
You've been an Eckist on groups for a long time ........ has this EVER
happened in real life before? How come you walk out one door and straight
away all your friends for years are now THUGS? This sort of imaginary crap
is simply unbelieveable, and quite sad that people are so affected in this
way.
> I can and will come up with new accounts, and new ID's as
> often as I need to....
> Hey any ex eckies listen to Harold's talk over the weekend? Gosh
> does he sound like he is going off the deep end or what? Lack of
> focus, and .... gesh where was the words of WISDOM, from the Wizard?
> Oh I forgot he talks in parables, and a lowly execkie wouldn't see it
> for what it really is/was? Any one have a bet who the next LIVING eck
> master might be?
Mature, real mature. Enjoy your new set of friends, you're a quick learner.
But that's your choice and if it makes you feel comfortable and at home
..... well go for it.
I really enjoyed Sri Harold's talk, and obviously so did the thousands in
the audience. He's a great example for people and he sounded very strong and
full of love to me.
As my friend said to me as I was leaving after the talk, "It's great to be
an ECKist isn't it?" I said it sure is!!!
It's on till Nov. 1st if any people are interested.
http://www.eckankar.org/Broadcast/
cher
> There are lots of reasons why a critic does not want their identity
> revealed and it is not necessary being ashamed of what they post as you
> and Cher have suggested.
But being ashamed of what one writes to a newsgroup is a prime cause of
interest where anonymity is abused for the sake of unrelenting anger and
hatred without consequences. The point of such a discussion was
something called "accountability". This issue is being taken very
seriously by professional researchers who have been studying the
treatment of people in and out of dangerous religions. The reality that
many exmembers use this time of separation from their former path to
demonize the people and the path where no true evidence of danger exists
has become a main focal point in these studies to the degree that many
proponents of the anticult community are now second guessing their
positions on these issues based on a need for further proof from these
people. This has been most helpful in removing many of the untrue
allegations about many religions under siege from the anticult
community.
> Critics may not want thier address information posted with the
> suggestion that people call their wives and kids.
People can use throwaway accounts for email, but still use their first
name when posting to this group. There are so many allegations about
Eckankar made by supposed former members, including fear tactics like
the one lurk mentions. One instance of an exmember challenging an ECKist
to find his phone number and suddenly this is considered common place
behavior by all ECKists.
> Critics may not want it to be know they were once a member of a cult
> since this could effect their current employment of future employment
> opportunities.
Eckankar is only listed as a cult in the anticult community because of
the efforts of this group of exmembers here. The efforts of david lane
lead to a christian publication and interest in this path, but there has
been only minimal effect on the teachings or it's membership because of
his efforts. Over the years, this path has been studied in many
religious studies departments and has consistently been shown to be at
the very worst benign. Eckankar is seen as a new emerging religion by
most and not at all interested in any form behavior that would be
considered as dangerous to anyone or their family.
> Critic may not want letters written to their current religious
> affiliation from childish eckists which has happend.
This is an unfounded rumor that recently popped up here via lurk. There
is no proof that any such event took place. What good would it do to
write to the leader of a different religion telling them they had a
member behaving childishly? The closest I can come to this sort of
behavior would have been sharon comstock posing as an interested party
in Buddhism and posting to their newsgroup seeking their views on
Eckankar. This fear is unfounded and frankly doesn't make sense to
anyone who is a member of Eckankar.
> Critics may not want their licensing boards contacted with bogus
> complaints and deal with the beauracries since licensing boards have to
> take serious every nut case like Cher that might lodge a complaint.
The only instance of this occurring was with one colleen russell on this
newsgroup. She started posting about being a founding member of Eckankar
and then posted about her former husband being a pedophile and making
accusations about this being common place, which is viscous and untrue.
Then she started posting of her credentials as a therapist and inviting
those who had been injured to join her. All of this behavior is
repugnant in itself but not unusual on this newsgroup. What caught
everyone's attention was her use of unsubstantiated stories and
exaggerations about this path followed by her posting messages that
contained her license number in california. This is in nearly any state
of the U.S. a violation of therapists ethics. The matter was discussed
with her board, and with colleen herself on this newsgroup. It was above
board and based on concern for her patients. Shortly after this event
she set up a mailing list for former members with her license
information in the welcome page. She later removed this information and
replaced it with a disclaimer stating: "This is not a therapy group,
although it may be therapeutic." This says that the actions of those who
were concerned had been taken seriously. Only a short time later colleen
cross posted a message from her group that she felt gave a good view of
cult damage. She did this without permission from the author of that
post and in effect placed this woman in a most embarrassing position.
Her sense of confidentiality being a member of a moderated newsgroup had
been compromised entirely. I share this instance, because it most
certainly showed that concern of this woman's callous disregard for her
ethical code of behavior was correct.
> Critic may want to only focus the discussion on the merits of the
> debates or exchanges and not have to deal with ad hominem arguments.
I find this particular point to be almost laughable. Please take a look
through the archives and see how often a poster who is an ECKist
disagrees with a point, and is suddenly attacked in the most personal
ways having nothing whatsoever to do with Eckankar or the issues
surrounding the path of Eckankar.
> Critic may want to protect their children from being harrassed by people
> wanting to call and get them to agree that their father is posint
> incorrectly on a newsgroup as Rich has threatened to do.
Rich joked with joe concerning what his children would say if they saw
what their father posted here. Instantly lurk took this to mean it was a
real threat and has taken it upon himself to go so far as to insist that
this is of the same level of threat as the attacks of 9/11. :-\ One only
needs to look at the threat that lurk made only a few posts later
suggesting that detractors could easily contact Rich's place of
employment and share his behavior and membership in a cult! Of course
this was blown off by lurk when pointed out to him that this was a
threat of escalation. He submitted that it was hypothetical. He refuses
to accept that Rich's instance was also hypothetical. You decide for
yourself.
cher.........
> Lurk
Cultbuster
>I think he's hopeless.
You keep thinking that Rich......as long as it makes you feel
better.<GG>
This scumbag did in fact write me privately
>several years ago at two different times.
And you wrote back.
He feigned being apologic and
>nice, and promised that he'd stop his behavior.
People change their mind. It's their right.
But a few weeks later,
>each time, there he was again, under a different pseudo, being abusive,
>swearing, insulting, lying about me, lying about Eckankar and every
>Eckist in this NG.
I don't lie about Eckankar because it is a self contained lie, so
lying about it means I am telling the truth!<G>
You on the other hand operate from the Twinkie Zone where there is
ZERO accountability to your despicable actions, sneaky tactics, and
lying through your yellow stained choppers.
>
>It's actually sad since he's likely a very tortured individual finding
>ways to act out his hurt, get attention, never seeing that he's cutting
>off his nose to spite his face.
Hmmm. Not at all tortured. You'd like to believe it, but not true.
Post proof or shut up. My question may be: How happy can a Multi Level
Marketeer be. It's a game for losers with high hopes. You are one of
those losers. If you do have money, it's because of your wife.
I work for a living and get paid well. It's just the nature of my
demographics coupled with my expertise. I do quite well Rich. I just
have fun with the likes of you and your Stooges of the Sugmad. You
just don't see it that way. You may know a few things about me, but
you are getting about 5% of it.
I feel sorry for him.
Save it Rich. Look inside for the real sorry ass. Go blow your sour
flute to the birds. Go call somebody up. Do something, wanker.
CB
arelurker
No, I don't find this humorous.
I'm sure that she would not be surprised by what you post to
> this group. It is after all, your premise that loved ones of detractors
> would not be ashamed to share what they write with their loved ones.
I never said that was my premise, I said that is your assumption. I said
there are lots of reasons that are possible that that people don't want
you or Rich calling their mothers and kids. That I have to explain this
to you is surrealistic.
I'd
> love to see this tested in real life!
What a sicko.
>
> > >
> > > > Because of your ASSUMPTION, you and Rich believe you have some sort of
> > > > leverage to stop people from saying what you consider as offensive
> > > > things to eckists here.
> > >
> > > No, that's your ASSUMPTION. No one is trying to make you stop posting to
> > > this group, only clean up your act and behave responsibly for yourselves
> > > and your actions.
> >
> > Clean up? You mean behave and post according to whose standards? Your's
> > and Rich's? I see. Thanks for revealing your agenda.
> >
> > >Is that too big a stretch for you, lurk?
> >
> > Yes, I don't live and conduct myself according your standards and
> > assumptions about how I should behave.
>
> You sure are struggling with this whole thing, lurk. My goodness.... no
> one is telling you that you can't post anymore, just take ownership of
> what you post.
No, you're telling me that if I don't "clean up" my behavior (as yet
undefined) then you think it is fair to threaten to call relatives.
These are not my standards alone, they are reflected in
> the terms of service with most ISP's and newsreaders. There is a
> standard for posting, even though there is a small group that shouts
> loudly and protests for freedom of speech. <smile>
>
> > Do you see a
> > > difference here? Or is this all just threats to your right to abuse
> > > others at will?
> >
> > Again, two other assumptions you make: 1) that my posts are abusive, and
> > 2) that I view them this way and therefore am afraid to tell my Mom
> > about them.
> >
> > There is no end to your control trip you on.
>
> I can see that you're fighting this discussion. I honestly cannot fathom
> where all this fear comes from in you.
Maybe you should concentrate on the assumptions you keep making and
responding to as if they are true. That's a start.
Now you're reversing your position from above where you said "clean up
your act and behave responsibly for yourselves and your actions."
You're clearly telling me what to do and using your as yet undefined
standards.
only that there are
> boundaries of civility. That's just life in a society.
>
> > I'm sure you worked long
> > > and hard on it, but it's based on your fear of having to lose your
> > > rights to abuse at will. You seem to base your belief here on the fact
> > > that someone is feeling hurt by the silliness you guys post. Nothing
> > > could be further from the truth.
> >
> > If it is true that no body's feelings are hurt by posts, then how is it abuse?
> >
> > You're getting flustered and contradicting yourself in the same paragraph.
>
> Not at all. You're the one trying to make this conversation about my
> emotions,
And you're the one trying to make the conversation about cleaning up
what you see as abuse that is yet undefined except for calling you a
knucklehead.
instead of civilized behavior. I'm just pointing out that I
> can tell when something is abusive and not be effect of that abuse.
>
> > But the fact is, any civilized group of
> > > people can decide that a behavior pattern has gone too far and ask that
> > > it be placed back in the hands of those who show no awareness of their
> > > behavior.
> >
> > You can decide whatever you want, but I and others are free to post
> > negative stuff about eckankar, are free to call you a knucklehead if I
> > want. Quit trying to control free expression here and the way people
> > behave.
>
> How can I control anything, lurk?
You can't. That's the point. So stop trying by advocating that it is
alright to post people's address information or to threaten to call
their children or write letters to licensing boards. This behavior is
unacceptable by eckists and is simply strong arm tactics. Eckthugs is appropriate.
> This is discussion. A conversation.
> Why are you so threatened by discussion?
I'm not threatened by a discussion. Never have been. I can't imagine why
you would suggest such.
>
> > >
> > > > Now on the other hand, the sequence I outlined can be applied to
> > > > anonymous critics: They read something of an eckist that they consider
> > > > offensive or evokes some kind of hurt feeling and then instead of
> > > > dealing with their own hurt by acknowledging it and dealing with it, or
> > > > searching for what hooked them, they unload on an eckist. (Eckists do
> > > > the same thing.)
> > > >
> > > > This is sequence I just describe constitutes most of the discussions on
> > > > a.r.e. that are of a disagreeing nature. This is one kind of interpretation
> > > > that occurs here.
> > >
> > > Truly you seem to have this all worked out in your head to justify your
> > > behavior on this group.
> >
> > Your response here is telling me you are unwilling or unable to speak
> > seriously about quality of exchanges here on a.r.e.. I fairly present
> > the dynamic that occurs with both eckists and critics that leads to
> > rancor and you simply dismiss it off handedly.
>
> Actually what you have shared here is a tension at the thought of giving
> up the right to be post in an abusive manner without ownership of or
> accountablity?
Nah, I didn't think you would respond to a series assessment of the
problem in the sequence I outline above that was objective. You just
avoid the issue.
What is so frightening about setting limits for yourself
> as to how far you're willing to escalate attacks on people instead of
> sticking to the subject of the issues at hand?
Cher I set my limits and don't need your help. Trying to strong arm your
what you consider over the limit is a different story.
>
> > I'm attempting to be objective here....but you seem to be open to such dialog.
> >
> > But it doesn't change the fact that you behave,
> > > and you own that behavior and it's consequences. There is no
> > > rationalization for or justification of that behavior outside of your
> > > choices and apparently your inability to assume responsibility for such.
> >
> > All you are doing here is confi rming the dynamic I pointed out that is
> > contributing to the rancor.
>
> Why is it that you have to assign blame?
If you'll read what I wrote, I clearly showed the dynamic applies to
eckists and critics. Does that sound like blaming to you?
See, you don't want to go there with me and be objective when I talk
about a dynamic that applies to eckists and critics. That would take you
out of the blaming loop and you're not ready to go there yet.
> Disassociating ECKist that you
> post to here from humanity is not acceptable behavior in my opinion.
Well good. Then write all about what you perceive, or ignore it. But
don't start advocating eckists post address information, call relatives,
or write licensing boards.
> Pointing out that you are leaning on faulty and archaic materials from
> the anticult community and that these tactics dehumanize the people you
> are communicating with intentionally is hardly ignoring objectivity.
I use a cult criteria list, I think it works as a model. It is not
dehumanizing that way I use it. It describes common behaviors of cultic groups.
In
> fact I'm being very objective in sticking to the fact that this is a
> choice, and not about you as a person. See how this is done, lurk?
>
> > >
> > > > But for you to feel justified in taking this outside this newsgroup to
> > > > call people's relatives is an escalation of the usual aggression here.
> > > > My view is that disagreements and volatile exchanges need to stay in
> > > > this group. To call people's mothers or threaten to call people's
> > > > mothers or kids is escalation of aggression. When aggression begins to
> > > > escalate, it usually starts to take a life of its who. The possibility
> > > > exist where physical violence will be seen as justified if and when an
> > > > eckist starts calling someone's kids to talk to them about what they
> > > > post. Again, this is not a veiled threat by me, but is what I consider a
> > > > logical progression from escalation aggression outside this newsgroup.
> > > >
> > > > Do you and Rich really want to eckists and critics to start calling
> > > > people and try to get them fired from their jobs, or call their mothers
> > > > or whatever?
> > >
> > > What a short memory you have. Who was it that posted the link the work
> > > phone number to my RESA clearly stating that as an ECKist I needed to be
> > > stopped! <smile>
> >
> > I thought is was an eckist who did that. And I'm record as having stated
> > that I disagree with that whether it was an eckists or not.
>
> And felt no problems with seeing it as a bad thing which must have been
> done by an ECKist. I see a pattern in this.
It would be unacceptable if it was ex member.
>
> > > That just smacks of double standards on your part. Have
> > > you gotten so comfortable in talking out of both sides of your mouth? My
> > > phone number was published to this group! So was Windy's!
> >
> > I don't agree with that either. See what Rich's and your behave
> > inspires? That's what I'm talking about...the escalation thing.
>
> Exactly what in my behavior are you looking at?
You're advocating and supporting Rich's posting address information and
threatening to call relatives and making veiled threats to contact
Colleen's licensing board or defending Steve when he does contact them.
>
> > What's next with your nuts? Calling each others employers to see if we
> > can get each other fired?
>
> That's uncalled for, lurk. Why would any civilized human being do such a
> thing?
That would be the natural next step isn't it? Eckists imposing there
will on people here to "clean up" their behavior by threatening to call
their employer. Wouldn't yo simply support escalating the threats and
justify them as they get more severe. Sure you would. That's where your
and Rich's thinking leads.
Consider what eckists have done, this is a reasonable progression so
your question is disingenuous.
> That was by the way, your imaginative suggestion, remember?
Called a hypothetical.
>
> > Do I see you
> > > acknowledging this reality here? Nope... just pissing and moaning over
> > > the possibility that your mom might get a call some day. <smile> That's
> > > a wake up call, lurk. Clean it up. <smile>
> >
> > Cher I don't think any critic should post address or phone information
> > on newsgroup. I've said this before but apparently you feel a strong
> > need to act as though I haven't.
>
> Fine, then we agree on one point. That means we're getting somewhere
> here. I know that I didn't like it when it happened to me or when my
> RESA's information was posted and I'm sure that Windy didn't like it
> either.
Well good. So why are you advocating eckists do this sort of thing.
>
> > >
> > > > See how absurd your justification for calling is? See where it could lead?
> > > >
> > > > I understand you and Rich feel extremely disempowered here because you
> > > > can't control and dominant critics, but that is your problem you need to
> > > > deal with. Advocating an escalation, I fear, will not be healthy for
> > > > either one of you or to eckankar's reputation.
> > >
> > > Poor lurk, so stuck in your own little viewpoint incapable of seeing the
> > > bigger picture here. Such a victims stance from you.
> >
> > I think my stance is a realistic stance. Escalation takes on a life of
> > its own. I think you and Rich should seriously reconsider your
> > positions. I think you and Rich should learn to control you own emotions
> > instead of trying to control other people and disempowering yourself in
> > the process.
>
> Pardon me? You still chose to believe that this is a control trip?
Yes, most definitely.
I've
> taken great patience in showing you that your view of posting to this ng
> as a wild west fantasy is not the real world. There are consequences for
> every action lurk, regardless of whether you feel safe hiding your
> identity or not.
The consequence in my mind, should be people either respond to the posts
or they ignore them. I don't think threatening to call relatives,
posting their address and phone numbers and hoping people call their
wives and kids as Rich suggested, or contacting a licensing boards are
acceptable responses.
Taking that ownership of your actions is not a
> restriction, but a civilized mature manner of behavior. You seem truly
> frightened at the thought.
Yes I'm frightened by the thought that you think you have legitimate
stake in deciding what behavior needs to be "cleaned up" as you called
it. That kind of thinking you and Rich exhibit along with your deep
disempowerment is a formula for explosiveness. We already have seen how
Rich is a hot head. That is his reputation. Well earned one
been quite repugnant. When disempowered people can't get satisfaction
from one form of threat to control behavior of others, it usually
escalates. The final act of disempowerment is violence.
>
> > No one cares about
> > > the things detractors post here ad nauseam. They are deep in the
> > > archives for anyone who's interested in that sort of thing. You don't
> > > even need to be here any longer.... you've flooded this group with
> > > negative propaganda over the years. Your job is actually done. Being
> > > here is just a choice now... not an obligation. <smile>
> >
> > Too bad that you are not responding to the substance of my comments. I
> > am seriously reaching out to you and Rich to put an end to the
> > escalation you two are instigating and advocating. Seems you are
> > unavailable for cool headed discourse.
>
> Escalation? You truly do feel threatened by the idea of civilized
> discourse, of personal ownership of what you post, of accountability.
Again, as I told you earlier that is your assumption. My point stands.
You are unwilling to look at your reactions to what and how people post
as the source of the problems. And you feel justified in escalating to
making threat to call relatives, posting their address and phone numbers
and hoping people call their wives and kids as Rich suggested, or
contacting a licensing boards are acceptable responses.
> Why is this?
>
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Love
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Michael
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well that's the point of the thing, isn't it? Anonymous posters seem to
> > > > > > > abuse their entitlement of suffering through projection to the point
> > > > > > > where they have slipped into an abusive pattern of posting on this
> > > > > > > group. Ideas are no longer what matters,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm an anonymous poster and I keep asking you in other threads to
> > > > > > support your claims and you refuse to.
> > > > >
> > > > > Excuse me? The point here is about how posting anonymously can open the
> > > > > door to projecting an entitlement of suffering onto the person you're
> > > > > posting to. Would you like to say something about this?
> > > >
> > > > I covered this above.
> > >
> > > No, you missed it entirely. That's why I brought it up again.
> >
> > Okay....
> >
> > The dynamic of someone feeling hurt or angry and dumping it on other
> > posters happens whether people post anonymously or with their name. You
> > have been dumping on people for many years and use your name. So it
> > hasn't stopped you. You contradict your own viewpoint.
>
> I am not afraid of what I share here, lurk. I take ownership of what I
> post. Is there something wrong with this in your eyes? You seem to
> believe that I should be ashamed of what I post here, but I'm not.
Your demeanor is quit abrasive, insulting, angry in a passive way, etc.
Depends if you feel ashamed about these qualities. You don't have to be
ashamed, just become aware of them instead of lecturing everyone else.
>
> > You are taking one variable (identity) and attributing cause to that. The
> > point is: whether an eckist or a critic dumps on the OTHER or not,
> > whomever they dump on has a choice: To ignore or to disagree.
>
> True, but that doesn't mean that there are no limits or ramifications
> for such behavior! It isn't a right, lurk. Not for anyone.
What ramifications are you talking about? The ramifications of eckists
calling relatives, posting their address and phone numbers and hoping
people call their wives and kids as Rich suggested, or contacting a
licensing boards if they don't like what the poster says or how they say it.
>
> > Posting address information with the hope that they call someone's wife
> > or kids is no way to handle this.
> >
> > What's next? If an eckist dumps on a critic, then we should look the
> > eckists up and do research and find out where they work and call there
> > boss. See how absurd you people are being?
>
> Well not as absurd as your suggestion, I can assure you! <smile> But
> that's your imagination, not mine. You really seem stuck on this point
> too, is there a personal significance to this particular idea that you
> keep bringing up?
Yeah, the significance is I think people should deal with communication on
the group here by disagreeing or ignoring.
Cher you are free to tell us what you think is unacceptable behavior.
However, I don't find it acceptable for you to enforce and impose your
will on what you think is acceptable behavior by calling relatives,
posting their address and phone numbers and hoping people call their
wives and kids as Rich suggested, or contacting a licensing boards.
See the difference?
>
> > That's what the discussion is about. Your right to
> > > argue till you turn blue in the face is not threatened lurk. Calm down.
> > > It's your behavior in arguing that's the issue here.
> >
> > So I'm not allow to call you a knucklehead because, as you claimed in
> > another post, that is abusive? I don't agree.
>
> Allowed?
Yeah, allowed as in if I call you knucklehead you will threaten to call
relatives, posting my address and phone numbers and hoping people call
my relatives as Rich suggested, or contacting a licensing boards and any
other enforcer techniques you all come up with.
>Lurk, I'm only saying that to do so is abusive in my world.
Well that is good that you expressed your standard. Now the next step
is to ask me to stop calling you knucklehead if you find it abusive.
Just calling it abusive is not enough. After you make such a request,
then you have to release your attachment to the outcome. Meaning, you
need to appreciate I might have a different standard in what I consider
abusive that is different than yours and I may not honor you request.
It
> means that calling me names to try to diminish me in an argument is not
> a mature method of conversng.
Really? Hey i don't have to call you names or insult you. I asked you
awhile bake if you wanted to continue posting in YOUR style of insults
put downs and name calling. You indicated via that you wanted to
continue. That's the only reason I do so with you. I communicate how you
communicate....only sometimes I don't think you are aware that you are
insulting people because it is second nature and a personality fixation.
> It is in fact not my idea of abusive,
> it's commonly referred to as such in most psychological journals.
>
> > See the difficulty in you trying to control and decide what is and is
> > not abusive? That's why it is important for you to take responsibility
> > for you own emotional responses instead of instead of trying to enforce
> > your dubious concept of what is and is not abusive on the group.
>
> Wow... again, so personally threatened at the idea of a ng where the
> ideas are addressed and not wild insinuations about the people offering
> them up. Why does this idea seem so alien to you lurk?
It is not alien nor is it threatening. I think you're the one who has
trouble in the civility area. I've argued issues for years here and
actually prefer civil discourse. If you're not getting civil discourse
from me then it is because your are getting what you are giving. I've
told you this hundreds of times and you continue with your acerbic and
abrasive stuff which gets returned to you and then you cry foul.
>
> > There is nothing
> > > that you can say on this group now that clearly isn't available on the
> > > web from countless years of detractors posts. Same old arguments too.
> >
> > I feel I have a unique perspective on things.
>
> Or a need that this place fulfills.
>
> > So
> > > what makes you think that by saying this abuse of anonymity is somehow
> > > supposed to stop you from your choices?
> >
> > Asking me to post using my real name is you trying to control enforce
> > your value system. I chose not to, not for the reasons you are claiming.
>
> I'm not trying to force anything here lurk. I'm clearly and calmly
> stating that if one uses their own name they then take ownership for
> what they share.
Yes now you are. But earlier in the discussion you were advocating
having people real name allows eckists to call relatives, posting their
address and phone numbers and hoping people call their wives and kids as
Rich suggested, or contacting a licensing boards and that this is a good
way to clean up their behavior.
Just look at sharon for an example if this is too much
> for you comprehend. She posts under her name all the time. Maybe she can
> help you with this need to hide under a pseudonym in order to speak your
> mind.
>
> > > It's about accountability for
> > > your behavior, not your views. These are clearly different issues.
> >
> > yeah I'm such a bad boy... I called you a knucklehead
> > and abused you.
> >
> > Grow up.
>
> Well frankly I have little interest in what sort of boy you think you
> are. It's the idea that you come here hiding and this gives you a false
> sense of entitlement to be and behave abusively towards others. That's
> the problem.
I know you keep assuming this but it is not true. I have my reasons and
they are none of you business.
And sister you really really need to worry about your own abuse. I think
you've been voted the most disgusting poster of the new millennium here
by critics and detractors.
>
> > >
> > > > Perhaps if we decide to change the subject to psychology then I
> > > > > might point out your need to put other people down and demonize them to
> > > > > a lower status then you in need of your help?
> > > >
> > > > Cher you were commenting on what you see as abusive behavior on this
> > > > newsgroup, so I took the opportunity to share what I see as your abusive
> > > > behavior on this newsgroup. It wasn't off topic.
> > >
> > > Is that the going excuse of trying to make the issue instead of the
> > > issue at hand?
> >
> > I brought this up to assert that I was not off topic as you claimed.
>
> Whenever the person becomes the topic then it is!
So when you talk about what you see as my abuse then you are off topic?
You don't know me. I
> don't know you. As a matter of fact, I use my real name, but you have no
> name except for the one I gave you in order to see you as a human being
> instead of an entrenched enemy. See?
And you point is........
>
> > Is that how you do this sort of thing? Odd... that shows
> > > up in all the data on line about verbally abusive people, that very self
> > > same excuse. Strange. You should look it up.
> >
> > If you want me to be accountable for what you see is my abusive
> > behavior, then point out what you see as abusive and I'll give you an
> > accounting. You don't need to call my spouse or kids to get an
> > accounting. Just ask! See how easy that is?
>
> Pardon me lurk but sharing your posts with your mother will solve this
> nicely.
Just as calling eckists employers and telling them how their employee
are members of cults will solve your the eckists penchant to calling
mothers. See how stupid that is? See how childish you and Rich are being?
>I already have children and am not seeking another son to raise.
> This is about you learning to be accountable for your own behavior, not
> me taking up babysitting.
I am accountable for my own behavior via my own standards. You seem to
have a problem with that and feel it is necessary to call relatives,
post their address and phone numbers and hoping people call their wives
and kids as Rich suggested, or contacting a licensing boards to get
people to behave the way you want them to behave.
All you're saying here without really being clear is you don't like
being called a culthead. You think it dehumanizes you.
Fine.
This would be one of those times where I disagree with your assessment
and I feel I should be able to use a the term cult without threats of my
mother being called or someone posting my address and phone numbers and
hoping people call their wives and kids as Rich suggested, or contacting
a licensing boards.
I don't have to spin. Long time members who come here after leaving
eckankar are particularly hated because their word carries more weight
with eckists who may be sitting on he fence about issue.
>
> > Many of you eckists are very reactive.
>
> You mean like suggesting that detractors as the same as Islamic
> terrorists? Is that what you mean lurk?
Where did that come from? I meant many of you eckist react emotionally.
Your Islamic comparison being an example of such reaction.
>
> > That's something that perhaps you might not understand but
> > > clearly the professional community would. You should look into the
> > > ethics for her profession before you make her the poster child here in
> > > the case you're building. There were clearly ethical violations that
> > > were forming. She should thank Steve for saving her license! I thought
> > > he should leave her to her own devices and hang herself with her
> > > behavior. Frankly it's her profession and if she is that ignorant of the
> > > ethics expected of her then let her learn the hard way!
> >
> > You are clearly advocating an escalation in aggression here by trying to
> > justify Steve's deplorable actions.
>
> Your opinion. But the fact is, she was definitely breaking her own
> ethical guidelines. Some professionals take that sort of thing very
> seriously and I can see why!
I don't know enough to know if she was or not. She was naive about
posting and such and seem to be new to the Internet.
>
> > This is the very thing that I think can lead to violence. You eckists
> > start fucking with people's livelihood and it could come back at you in
> > an escalating way. This is the scenario I'm trying to warn y'all about.
>
> Violence? Like the detractor who made death threats against Sri Harold
> and Peter Skelsky? Is that what you mean?
Yes the eckists threaten Harold. He wasn't a detractor. This is false
information you keep spreading even after I've told you twenty times.
This is what I'm talking
> about, this sort of irresponsible slander to all ECKist because you are
> afraid of posting to a public newsgroup and being held accountable for
> your actions.
How did I slander eckists?
>
> > You don't want critics to start calling eckist's bosses and let them
> > know what they post and try to get them fired, do you?
> >
> > See how stupid you and Rich are being.
> >
> > (I can't believe any of your leaders in eckankar who are reading these
> > posts do not step up and express their truth about this important matter.
> > You have got some very misguided eckists here who are basically on a
> > path to physical violence happening which wouldn't be good for
> > eckankar's business.)
>
> Now that is what is commonly called slander, lurk. Plain and simple. And
> unfortunately this is the sort of thing that you probably wouldn't want
> anyone to see you doing if you had accountablity for what you post here.
> Shouting fire in a room filled with people is a sign of immaturity.
This is where you and Rich are headed. I keep trying to explain it to
you but you're not hearing me. You guys keep this calling people and
threatening to call people and one day you're going to catch the wrong
person at the wrong time.
All because you both are control freaks.
I can still use the cult model and keep you all human.
>
> > In fact is a
> > > permission for those who feel threatened and injured to go on a witch
> > > hunt. The APA is still looking to see if there is any evidence in this
> > > information that has been based solely on nonprofessional exmembers. The
> > > book is still out on this whole issue, lurk. That's why I can stand here
> > > and tell you that there is no science involved in the material about so
> > > called cults that you use as an excuse!
> >
> > I never claimed it was science nor do I need it to be science in order
> > for the criteria cult list to be a function model.
>
> Well it's under scrutiny now by science.
I could care less.
In fact I posted a link to an
> article that you might be interested in reading.
>
> > The detrimental effects of such
> > > behavior based on this group of amateur theories has begun to surface
> > > and it's truly disconcerting to discover that to date the greatest
> > > abuses have come from those who buy into this pop culture of
> > > anticultism. You should take a look at the material surrounding that
> > > particular area of belief of yours. You're so prone to critical views.
> >
> > I understand there are critical views of the anti-cultist positions and
> > that such positions can be cultic themselves. This is not news to me,
> > and I have written about such long before your rants about this.
>
> Was that before or after the lastest incidence of referring to ECKists
> as cultheads?
I can call eckists culthead and not be involved in this big bad
anti-cult movement you think I belong to.
I'm really talented too. I can call you cultheads and still care about you
all at the same time.
>
> > >
> > > > > Why do you need to dehumanize those who
> > > > > disagree with you?
> > > >
> > > > I don't accept the premise of your question. I don't use the cult model
> > > > to dehumanize you. I use the cult model to explain perceptions and
> > > > viewpoints. My wish for you is that you be more alive when freed from
> > > > the limitation of cultic thinking. I like to think I'm humanizing you.
> > >
> > > You need to double check your premise here, lurk. First of all, the
> > > practice of disassociating the humanity of the one you disagree with is
> > > not based on sound science.
> >
> > That's your assumption of what happens if I use the term cult and cultic
> > thinking. I'm using the terms in specific ways pertaining to specific
> > comments or behavior of eckists. I don't use the term as a general put
> > down to dehumanie you. I find them useful.
>
> I'm sure you find them useful, mostly to put people down and dismiss
> their ideas.
I use them to denote the quality of their ideas and thinking.
>
> > Perhaps you feel hurt when I use this term and feel like you are being
> > dehumanized. Maybe if your honest and tell me it hurts your feelings, I
> > will stop using the term.
>
> This is a sick assumption on your part, lurk.
Suit yourself. You just pass up the opportunity for you to exert some
real power. The real power of telling me that it hurts you or makes you
angry that I used the term cult. That's all you had to do and I would
have stopped.
You should ponder this incident deeply and ask yourself: Why would I
choose to try to badger Lurk into not using the term cult with my
dehumanizing arguments that won't fly with Lurk, when all I had to do is
ask him in a sincere and authentic way and I could have gotten what I wanted?
Could it be that you are so use to feeling like a victim, that you can't
imagine exerting you own power to get what you want. The power I'm
talking about is being in your truth, not trying to control others by
going outside this newgroup.,,,that's not real power, that's an
expression of your disempowerment as I keep explaining. Real power is
being in tune with what arise within you when you hear the term cult and
taking owership and then expressing yourself from the truth.
Get it yet?
>
> > No where is it considered appropriate to
> > > behave in this manner outside of perhaps cultures that are being charged
> > > with human rights violations.
> >
> > Behave in what manner? Calling a group cultic or it's members engaged in
> > cultic thinking? I think it is highly appropriate to your a criteria
> > list to evaluate a group and it members. It is clear what the criteria
> > is and it can be debated by all concerned.
>
> You dehumanize an entire group of people via a check list that no one
> other than the anticult community accepts as valid and you don't see a
> problem with this?
Nope I don't see a problem using the cult criteria list and i don't
think is dehumanizes you.
I think what dehumanizes you is when you don't take responsibility for
your emotions when hearing the term cult and numb yourself to the point
where you feel it is okay to call relatives, posting their address and
phone numbers and hoping people call their wives and kids as Rich
suggested, or contacting a licensing boards.
Lurk
>
> > > And secondly where would you place the
> > > onus of responsibility on the abuser here?
> >
i
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> cont.
>
> > I don't agree that calling a group cultic or pointing to cultic thinking
> > or behavior is abusive especially when I post the criteria list and
> > defined it for you some fifty time. It is making good us of a model.
>
> Of a model that is flawed. The research is coming out. <smile> But what
> I'm saying here is that you use this as a weapon on this group, just as
> sharon did earlier and joe before her. That is the very thing that has
> researchers taking a long hard look at what side of that equation is
> being cultic in their behavior.
The way i use it is to designate thinking and behavior here that is
consistent with the criteria list.
>
> > I understand you feel abused....but then, that is an opportunity for you
> > to track your emotions and try to control them instead of trying to
> > control others.
>
> Again, you have a great fear of being controled don't you?
No because I don't feel you can control me. However you could make life
a hassle if you all try to call relatives. I would have to block your
numbers, etc. If you try other strong arm tactics I would have to deal
with them.
No one is
> controling you lurk... just discussing issues.
>
> > Might makes right? Your
> > > answers are so absolute that it justifies you treating others in the
> > > manner that you do? This reeks of manifest destiny, lurk. And that's a
> > > personal side note. <shudder> I refuse to be removed from my beliefs and
> > > sent to your white mans schools. <grinning> Nope.... that doesn't buy it
> > > these days, lurk.
> >
> > Being a little dramatic here, don't you think.
>
> Not at all. Certainly no more so then you trying to sell the idea that
> "ECKists" are violent. <sigh>
I haven't been selling the ideas of eckists being violent. I'm merely
point out the natural progression of your mental violence of threaten
people in going outside the newsgroup here could be physical violence.
You and Rich should be concerned.
>
> > >
> > > Your beliefs in the anticult material gives you permission to
> > > disassociate ECKists from their humanity. That is a first step in cultic
> > > behavior, according to the true science that exists on the subject.
> > > That's what the germans did, remember?
> >
> > That is the first step in cultic behavior and is why I am pointing out
> > to you
> > and Rich that disassociating critics from their humanity by feeling it
> > is alright to post address and phone information with the hopes that
> > someone calls their kids and wife to harass them about what a critic
> > posts.
> >
> > Again, the sequence is this: Critic post a viewpoint or says something
> > that and eckist considers abusive. Eckist feels hurt or angry and tries
> > to deal with such emotions by controlling the critic. When that fails,
> > the eckist feels justified in going outside the group to enlist the help
> > of relatives to shame the critic into doing what the eckist wants. As
> > Cher said earlier "clean up" their behavior. See how absurd this
> > sequence is? (As I said it applies to critics as well).
> >
> > Why not skip all the bullshit control stuff and simple be responsible
> > for your emotional reactions and then be in your truth about it and
> > express it?
>
> This is certainly a fine example of what I've been talking about so far,
> lurk. Thanks!
Sorry but you have been advocating that it is alright for eckists to
post address and phone numbers, call mothers, etc instead of dealing
with their own emotions.
>
> > >
> > > > This only proves a lack of accountability in such
> > > > > instances. There is no incentive to accept responsibility for ones
> > > > > behavior once anonymity is abused. Where are the checks and balances for
> > > > > that person?
> > > >
> > > > Eckists use there real names here and still don't accept responsibility
> > > > for their actions and comments so I don't think the name has anything to
> > > > do with this. Another bogus argument.
> > >
> > > According to whom?
> >
> > Obviously me. I show you samples along the way if you want to me too.
> >
> > > Those who set out to change others rather than share
> > > ideas and viewpoints? Hmmm?
> >
> > Ask yourself who is working hard to try to change others. Someone who
> > post strong arguments on a newsgroup and cusses, or someone who post address
> > information, or writes licensing boards.
> >
> > See where you're mistaken?
>
> I love to dig addresses. It gives me something to do when you're trying
> to argue one of your points, that's been posted so often. I don't see it
> as a negative thing. But I guess it's threatening to you.
It is unacceptable to try to "clean up" critics behavior by posting
their phone and address information or threaten to call their mothers or
contact their licensing board.
>
> > See this slips back into the confusion of
> > > ideas with people. Not helpful.
> > >
> > > > > There is the block sender list. That of course is seen as
> > > > > censoring others instead of a healthy use of boundaries.
> > > >
> > > > I don't see it as censoring, I see it as an eckist choice. Kind of
> > > > childish, but nonetheless a choice.
> > >
> > > See it anyway you chose to, to get through your day. The fact is, it's a
> > > process of setting boundaries based on behavior, not ideas. And the
> > > confusion of these two is no longer an acceptable excuse.
> >
> > Cher, you are mistaken me for someone who cares whether you or anyone
> > else used the block sender list. I never said is was censoring so stop
> > acting like I said this. Gawd. I said through this whole post to ignore
> > what you find offensive, I never claimed block sender is censoring.
>
> No, joe did. And once he's said it a few more times, you'll swear it is
> gospel!
Cher, I have never call block sender list censoring so why. You can't
bring yourself to simply say you stand correct. You have to say
something stupid I swear it is gospel.
Lurk
whitefeather
> So Liz, did you use this email addy as owner of the ECK related youth
> group you set up on yahoogroups? Could it be that this is directly
> related to your problem?
>
***** Nope, actually this addy was a throw away type :). And if
you did your research you would already know that this was not the
same addy used during the Youth group days. The Youth group was
turned over to new moderators before I took this addy :). No
matter, it does, and did happen that a group of people did report my
addy to yahoo which was unfounded, and I suspect it may also have
something to do with the fact that I posted a comment on Ford's site.
It is questionable.... that I was shut out of the account just hours
after this happened? Believe me, I have spoken with several ex eckies
that have had this very thing happen to them! It does not surprise me
in the least that the eckies here would claim it couldn't be them...
and you all wonder why many ex eckies go under throw away accounts!
:)
arelurker
So you want me to prove my statement that I don't care if my mother knew
I called someone a cult puppy by allow you to contact her?
So if I threaten to call the employer of an eckists here as a way to
"clean up" their behavior, and the eckists objects, then it is safe for
me to conclude that the eckist is not proud of their behavior and had a
fear of their boss finding out. And if the eckist told me that he/she
wasn't afraid because of their behavior on the newsgroup, but had some
other reason, do you think I should make them prove it by giving me the
name of their employer so I could prove it?
See how when I apply your thinking to eckists it doesn't sound so good.
This is how nutso you and Sean sound?
Lurk
cher
>
> cher <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3F9D3785...@worldnet.att.net>...
> > So Liz, did you use this email addy as owner of the ECK related youth
> > group you set up on yahoogroups? Could it be that this is directly
> > related to your problem?
> >
>
> ***** Nope, actually this addy was a throw away type :). And if
> you did your research you would already know that this was not the
> same addy used during the Youth group days. The Youth group was
> turned over to new moderators before I took this addy :). No
Well that seemed to be the most sensitive area, so I'm glad that the
group was taken care of. Thank you for doing that! Seriously. <smile> So
moderator mind jumps to the next possibility. <smile>
> matter, it does, and did happen that a group of people did report my
> addy to yahoo which was unfounded, and I suspect it may also have
> something to do with the fact that I posted a comment on Ford's site.
Why would anyone hold that against you? Elizabeth, what on earth would
make someone, ECKist or not want to do that just because you posted to
fords BBS? That doesn't make sense. I can't hink of a single person who
is upset with you! Confused, yes.... but not angry or upset.
Did you get an email from yahoo? Did they tell you that it was a group
of people? Generally it's a form letter that they send out if they send
anything at all. So this seems like speculation. I can understand being
upset under these circumstances, but it really would help more if you
gave us some idea of what actually occurred and what sort of notice you
got. I know of no one that has taken offense to your posting here or to
fords web site. That is your spiritual choice. There is sadness for your
anger and hostility, but that isn't conducive to vengeful acts. This
just doesn't make sense.
Maybe this has to do with being banned on HuChat? Knowing now that there
was no hassels with the addy connected to handing over ownership of a
list, my money would be on being banned. To be honest with you I have no
idea what sort of ramifications that would or could have on ones email
account, but I can ask for you over on the help lists that I'm a member
of if you'd like! Just ask... and I'll pass along the questions you
have, okay?
> It is questionable.... that I was shut out of the account just hours
> after this happened? Believe me, I have spoken with several ex eckies
> that have had this very thing happen to them! It does not surprise me
> in the least that the eckies here would claim it couldn't be them...
> and you all wonder why many ex eckies go under throw away accounts!
> :)
That seems more like coincidence to me. I can see that you're trying
hard to put your life into a new perspective here, demonizing people in
your imagination isn't going to help the healing process. Normally for
something like that to happen, Liz, it means that there is some strong
emotional karmic connection between the people involved. Someone takes
it upon themself to lash out because they're hurt. No offense meant to
you in this instance, but I do believe that you could empathize with
that feeling. I don't know of anyone that has such an emotional
connection to you that would behave this way.
Now, that's not to say that there haven't been posters to this group
that have had letters sent off to their ISP's. Sure... someone steps
grossly over the boundaries and catches someone else off guard... but
you haven't had any major battles here. See what I mean? I guess what
I'm saying is that for all the time that I've known you, you were just a
really intelligent and nice person. I never saw you go head to head with
anyone that was apparent to any group. So you've got me at a
disadvantage on this one, Liz. I'm sorry that you've gone through this,
and am glad that your account got straightened out. It does appear that
something good came of it all. I'm just confused as to why you seem to
believe that after all the time you've been this really nice lady that
anyone would treat you this way. It just doesn't strike my heart this
way. I hope that you're wrong. <smile>
cheryl............
cher
>
> cher wrote:
> >
> > arelurker wrote:
> > >
Well then it might be more beneficial if you were to stop trying to tell
me that this is all it's about and perhaps consider communicating about
other possibilities! Seems to me that you made a very credible threat
that you later suggested was a hypothetical situation. You expect me to
accept that is true but you refuse to accept what anyone has to say on
this account. That just shows contumacious behavior on your part.
> I'd
> > love to see this tested in real life!
>
> What a sicko.
That wasn't nice. I'm serious! You made the suggestion that your mother
would not be ashamed of what you post here. I'm simply saying let's test
that theory! Otherwise it doesn't hold any value in this instance.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Because of your ASSUMPTION, you and Rich believe you have some sort of
> > > > > leverage to stop people from saying what you consider as offensive
> > > > > things to eckists here.
> > > >
> > > > No, that's your ASSUMPTION. No one is trying to make you stop posting to
> > > > this group, only clean up your act and behave responsibly for yourselves
> > > > and your actions.
> > >
> > > Clean up? You mean behave and post according to whose standards? Your's
> > > and Rich's? I see. Thanks for revealing your agenda.
> > >
> > > >Is that too big a stretch for you, lurk?
> > >
> > > Yes, I don't live and conduct myself according your standards and
> > > assumptions about how I should behave.
> >
> > You sure are struggling with this whole thing, lurk. My goodness.... no
> > one is telling you that you can't post anymore, just take ownership of
> > what you post.
>
> No, you're telling me that if I don't "clean up" my behavior (as yet
> undefined) then you think it is fair to threaten to call relatives.
No, you're jumping to this conclusion all on your own. I'm saying that
it's time we discussed what accountability for our posts means to this
group dynamic. You're the one who seems to believe people are trying to
control you and embarrass you.
> These are not my standards alone, they are reflected in
> > the terms of service with most ISP's and newsreaders. There is a
> > standard for posting, even though there is a small group that shouts
> > loudly and protests for freedom of speech. <smile>
Blowing this aspect off doesn't make your stance any more credible lurk.
> > > Do you see a
> > > > difference here? Or is this all just threats to your right to abuse
> > > > others at will?
> > >
> > > Again, two other assumptions you make: 1) that my posts are abusive, and
> > > 2) that I view them this way and therefore am afraid to tell my Mom
> > > about them.
> > >
> > > There is no end to your control trip you on.
> >
> > I can see that you're fighting this discussion. I honestly cannot fathom
> > where all this fear comes from in you.
>
> Maybe you should concentrate on the assumptions you keep making and
> responding to as if they are true. That's a start.
The oly assumptions being discussed are the ones you imagine I must be
making. So far they're wrong, and I've told you way.
No. That does seem to be all that you can comprehend from this
discussion though. It might be noted that in the future, such
contumacious behavior will simply be ignored by other posters as not
conducive to good conversation.
I explained these in another thread. I'm not going to continue to
address this sort of fabrication of fear from you any longer.
> > This is discussion. A conversation.
> > Why are you so threatened by discussion?
>
> I'm not threatened by a discussion. Never have been. I can't imagine why
> you would suggest such.
Read the thread.
See how personally threatened you're feeling? Seriously, this has
nothing to do with this newsgroup or Eckankar. There's something else
going on here.
> >
> > > I'm attempting to be objective here....but you seem to be open to such dialog.
> > >
> > > But it doesn't change the fact that you behave,
> > > > and you own that behavior and it's consequences. There is no
> > > > rationalization for or justification of that behavior outside of your
> > > > choices and apparently your inability to assume responsibility for such.
> > >
> > > All you are doing here is confi rming the dynamic I pointed out that is
> > > contributing to the rancor.
> >
> > Why is it that you have to assign blame?
>
> If you'll read what I wrote, I clearly showed the dynamic applies to
> eckists and critics. Does that sound like blaming to you?
>
> See, you don't want to go there with me and be objective when I talk
> about a dynamic that applies to eckists and critics. That would take you
> out of the blaming loop and you're not ready to go there yet.
>
> > Disassociating ECKist that you
> > post to here from humanity is not acceptable behavior in my opinion.
>
> Well good. Then write all about what you perceive, or ignore it. But
> don't start advocating eckists post address information, call relatives,
> or write licensing boards.
When did I do this? Is this another of your fear fantasies? Is there
some reason that you keep missing what it is I'm saying? This can't be
simple dramatics on your part. That would be too far fetched even for
you.
No this is how you chose to read into what I said. I do defend some
actions particularly where patients safety is involved. Do you believe
that this isn't an important issue? Are you telling me that
confidentiality isn't important in a therapy relationship? Or that
spending time and money on a therapist that has to create a disease in
order to cure it isn't just slightly off kilter to you? It is to the
board, so you don't count.
As to the other so called veiled threats. I refuse to address this with
you any longer. You have taken a contumacious behavior towards
discussing this and it's no longer worth my attention to continue to
explain it to you.
> >
> > > What's next with your nuts? Calling each others employers to see if we
> > > can get each other fired?
> >
> > That's uncalled for, lurk. Why would any civilized human being do such a
> > thing?
>
> That would be the natural next step isn't it? Eckists imposing there
> will on people here to "clean up" their behavior by threatening to call
> their employer. Wouldn't yo simply support escalating the threats and
> justify them as they get more severe. Sure you would. That's where your
> and Rich's thinking leads.
But lurk, you're the one who made the threat about calling employers!
That was you who made that threat to Rich! No ECKist ever said such a
thing here. That came from you old boy. Now you've gone and sacred
yourself silly with it. I suggest you do something about that problem
you created.
> Consider what eckists have done, this is a reasonable progression so
> your question is disingenuous.
Consider that ECKists have actually sat here and watched you do this to
yourself, lurk. It's entertaining to say the least.
> > That was by the way, your imaginative suggestion, remember?
>
> Called a hypothetical.
>
> >
> > > Do I see you
> > > > acknowledging this reality here? Nope... just pissing and moaning over
> > > > the possibility that your mom might get a call some day. <smile> That's
> > > > a wake up call, lurk. Clean it up. <smile>
> > >
> > > Cher I don't think any critic should post address or phone information
> > > on newsgroup. I've said this before but apparently you feel a strong
> > > need to act as though I haven't.
> >
> > Fine, then we agree on one point. That means we're getting somewhere
> > here. I know that I didn't like it when it happened to me or when my
> > RESA's information was posted and I'm sure that Windy didn't like it
> > either.
>
> Well good. So why are you advocating eckists do this sort of thing.
I'm not. You are assuming this is the case. You keep projecting it on
me.
cher
thing straight, lurk! What is it that has you so frightened?
For the record, you can call anyone you want to. I seriously doubt that
anyone who'd pick up would do anything other than hang up on a prank
call! But here's a clue for you, lurk. I never write anything I wouldn't
want the Mahanta to read. Now guess what that means to me as an ECKist.
<smile> See... I'm not perfect and it's not expected of me.
Ken
"Sean" <lifeswha...@earth.org> wrote ...
>
> > Oh, and the funny stuff too.
> >
>
> Easter. Get your submissions in now!
>
> I'm getting a cover page photo done with Sam in his Hutterite Stand Up
> Comedy regailia .....
Hey, don't know if Sam knows this or not, but there's a guy who
does stand up comedy around here, dressed as an Amishman.
(Amish are kinda like Hutterites, only stranger ;-). He has quite
the following too. I've seen him twice at a local comedy club,
pretty good over all, but I got the feeling that he was never Amish
himself. After reading some of Sam's stuff, if he can handle the
stand up part in front of the crowd, and gets the timing down
(timing is everything in comedy they say) ... well I'd love to see it
:-)
>
> Place your orders here : www.the-higher-plagarist-society.com
>
> ;-))
>
>
> PS welcome back, you didn't miss anything.
Thanks. I've still got about 850 unread posts and might just skip
over them all.
Ken
"Sam" <S...@here.ne.t> wrote ...
>
> If you don't mind, forward my email through to Ken. I don't know for how
> long I'll have my current ISP.
> I have his real email somewhere on Zip disk, which I haven't installled on
> my laptop.
>
> Once my current ISP is gone, I'll open a new account via our local phone
> company. They also host my website, so I'll keep it up and running for as
> long as I can. I haven't changed the email on my website because I don't
> want any more spam.
>
> My advice to all: Don't opt in to any email service. Yes, they say that they
> don't sell emails to other spammers. That, I believe, is a crock. It is such
> a relief not to get all these spam emails.
>
> I have not sent Ken or anybody to the block sender list. I only respond to
> what is useful to me anymore. There are still things I'd like to say here at
> a.r.e., but I don't see what the point would be. If something is worth
> saying, I've probably already said it somewhere, somehow along the way.
If you have something you need to say, rest assured that there is
someone out there that needs to hear it.
Ken
"whitefeather" <creative...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
Just wondering, exactly what did the complaint claim that you did
that breached the terms of service agreement?
Ken
"arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote ...
>
>
> Sean wrote:
> >
> > And critics may not want their personal information posted because they are
> > about to catch a plane and fly to MN to wreak their insane version of
> > justice upon Eckankar and it's leaders ...........................
>
> Most of the serious aggression on this newsgroup if from eckists who can't
> control what people say here so that they they have to take matters into
> their own hands by threatening to call people's children or posting
> their address information, or writing letters to licensing boards, etc.
>
> Many of you eckists are fucking nuts.
The really abusive devotees of demonization, who use foul
language regularly and call other people nasty names, who put
lables on others like they were just items on a shelf . . . those
people are *all* critics and detractors. The Eckists here do not
do that.
Cher and Sean are completely right about the dehumanizing
effects of that kind of thing.
You Lurk are just another in a long line of shallow, muddy minded
abusive bigots who have plagued this ng for years. What
possible value do you expect the individuals who read your
overly critical and destructive assesments to place on your
words?
SoulSinging
gee Liz, why the name calling anyways? why so bitter? i suppose there
isnt even the slightest chance that the events taking place online
could be caused by any other than an eckist? i see that reading ford's
book has increased your ability to give love ....i wonder if all of
the folks who read his book are so nice....im still waiting for him to
send me a copy to read...he seems to be scared tho...in any case, glad
to see your doing well, certainly alive and kicking
Joe
says...
>
>The really abusive devotees of demonization, who use foul
>language regularly and call other people nasty names, who put
>lables on others like they were just items on a shelf . . . those
>people are *all* critics and detractors. The Eckists here do not
>do that.
An absolute lie, as anyone who read this newsgroup on any given day well knows.
Ken
"Joe" <Joe_m...@newsguy.com> wrote ...
You don't see Eckists swearing at people and calling them
names as a rule. I shouldn't have said *all* of the people who
do that are critics and detractors. But the far and away vast
majority of the times it does happen, it's done by an Eckankar
critic and directed at an Eckist who says something that the
critic doesn't like.
Ken
"MICHAEL" <waf...@crap.com> wrote ...
>
> > What this place needs is a Readers Digest condensed version
> > that skips over all the unnecessary fluff and just prints the interesting
> > "heart of the matter" stuff.
> >
> > Oh, and the funny stuff too.
>
> I can see the headers now...
>
> Humour in Uniformity
> Word of the Decade... Flog
> Plagiarism... Is it a Crime
> Laughter, the best of the mediocre
> Dialogue... What no one ever tells you! (I like that one)
You Said It (again and again and again ...)
Only In a.r.e.
Detractor Planet
Go Ahead: Make Us Laugh (no change needed <g>)
And the tag line for the a.r.e. ReadersDigest version ... "Stories
About Nothing, Advice About Everything"
SoulSinging
forget all the name calling and squabbling back and forth....what i
wonder is, did eckankar in any way affect your life in a positive
manner? do you regret your whole involvement with the inner and outer
aspects of the path or just the outer?does the fact that you reject
eckankar now reflect to you that you have gained absolutely no
spiritual growth during your time with eckankar? do you stand back at
ground zero, spiritually, because you perhaps wasted your time with
this path at all? just curious, no sarcasm meant or implied, and no
judgements....i'm just curious because you are now seemingly
emotionally charged and as usual, i have many questions...just my
nature....i treat the Mahanta no different either
Baraka Bashad ...if you wish
Sean
"Ken" <kah...@attachments.att.net> wrote in message
news:HKinb.196666$0v4.15...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
When it is done by ECKists it is in a reflective loop back to the abusive
originator without malice, without emotional involvement. It's called
"active listening" technique #127.
It's also called return to sender!!!
<G>
Sean
"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3F9D45E0...@worldnet.att.net...
Joe
says...
Oh can it, Kenster. You call Lurk a "bigot" in this very thread.
Stuff your hypocritical moralizing, it's a bunch of crap.
Sean
"Joe" <Joe_m...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:bnkmn...@drn.newsguy.com...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics
and is intolerant of those who differ.
From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant "an excessively devoted or
hypocritical person." Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the
sense "a superstitious hypocrite."
PRETTY WELL DESCRIBES LURK's CONSISTENCY OVER THE YEARS.
The only hypocrits here seem to be JOE & LURK ........ not to mention ALF,
the whimpish pussy who stopps to lying to his mum to cover his
aggressiveness on thsi group for half a decade.
You are all intolerant bigots ........... every post proves that. No one
needs a DNA test, its obvious
bendouglass
Cultbuster <jam...@are.com> wrote in message news:<4tmqpv4arr8cl75ft...@4ax.com>...
MICHAEL
Oh my GOD... We forgot the obvious...
I am Joe's Verbage!
Also
A wank's as good as nod to a dead horse...
I SURVIVED! One horror story of a person locked up for 6 years in a mad
house
Tag line is good...
<G>
Love
Michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
@aloha.net Rich
"Cultbuster" <jam...@are.com> wrote
"Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote:
>
>
> >I think he's hopeless.
Example of Alfie's delusions:
> You keep thinking that Rich......as long as it makes you feel
> better.<GG>
As I actually said, I feel sorry for him.
> This scumbag did in fact write me privately
> >several years ago at two different times.
>
> And you wrote back.
Right, twice accepting his word.
> He feigned being apologic and
> >nice, and promised that he'd stop his behavior.
>
> People change their mind. It's their right.
Yes, Alfie has a right to repeatedly go back on his word.
> But a few weeks later,
> >each time, there he was again, under a different pseudo, being
abusive,
> >swearing, insulting, lying about me, lying about Eckankar and every
> >Eckist in this NG.
Example of Alfie's delusions:
> I don't lie about Eckankar because it is a self contained lie, so
> lying about it means I am telling the truth!<G>
Example of Alfie's delusions:
> You on the other hand operate from the Twinkie Zone where there is
> ZERO accountability to your despicable actions, sneaky tactics, and
> lying through your yellow stained choppers.
This is pitiful. The guy who tries to hide from accountability behind
an ever growing number of pseudos says this to me, who posts under my
real name and E-Mail address? I repeatedly write that I accept
responsibility for my actions, while Alfie never stops blaming Eckankar,
Eckists and ECK Masters, believing he isn't accountable for his own
behavior. He also includes the compusive lie and insult.
> >It's actually sad since he's likely a very tortured individual
finding
> >ways to act out his hurt, get attention, never seeing that he's
cutting
> >off his nose to spite his face.
>
> Hmmm. Not at all tortured. You'd like to believe it, but not true.
> Post proof or shut up.
Acting out hurt:
The variety of hurts that are the causes varies, but here's 52,000 links
about verbal abuse, that even Lurk admits Alfie is guilty of on this NG.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D29622B56
Here's his own words about getting attention:
"I am a self centered heartless son of a bitch with a
black belt and a gun collection Clint Eastwood would be envious of. I
love my chain saw, get roaring drunk at parties, demand attention...and
if I don't get it...will climb a high tension wire and threaten to touch
20,000 Volts until someone stands up and takes notice!! I've had three
girls at one time.....and still did a concert that night..only to find
myself in bed with another woman the next morning...GEEZUS life was
great!!!!!"
...because he was getting attention.
Cutting off his nose to spite his face:
The most obvious example is that _after_ knowing that I had his phone
number but was withholding it, telling me to post it anyway.
Example of Alfie's delusions:
> My question may be: How happy can a Multi Level
> Marketeer be. It's a game for losers with high hopes. You are one of
> those losers. If you do have money, it's because of your wife.
It's pitful how Alfie imagines that I derive my income, which is not
Multi-Level Marketing. Before this he imagined I was a garbage
collector, before that some other lie. Anything that suits his attempts
to disparage me is acceptable to him.
> I work for a living and get paid well. It's just the nature of my
> demographics coupled with my expertise. I do quite well Rich. I just
> have fun with the likes of you and your Stooges of the Sugmad.
Yes, we all know Alfie's enjoys trying to hurt people.
Example of Alfie's delusions:
> You just don't see it that way.
I have never said anything about Alfie's financial status. This is just
another Straw Man attack, at any any cost to his credibility with
reality.
> You may know a few things about me, but
> you are getting about 5% of it.
I know enough just by his despicable behavior on this NG.
> I feel sorry for him.
>
> Save it Rich. Look inside for the real sorry ass. Go blow your sour
> flute to the birds. Go call somebody up. Do something, wanker.
Always the verbal abuse. How sad that he refuses to acknowledge his
bile and seek professonal help. But in the end, in the bigger picture,
it will serve it's karmic purpose to Soul of recognizing the nature if
imbalance.
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
@aloha.net Rich
"whitefeather" <creative...@yahoo.com> wrote
> The throw away e-mail accounts, and keeping our ID's private might
> have something to do with the fact that, as what happened to me
> recently, some of the eckthugs contacted yahoo and had my account
> shut down for posting outside of the terms of service agreement....
> LOL,
LOL is right. Whoever did that, thanks for the effort, not that this
troll has learned the lesson of abiding by their agreements...
> so if they aren't worried about us ex eckies what do you call
> that?
Accountability. Anonymous posters somehow believe that their anonymity
protects them from culpability for their abuse. Worried? LOL again.
> I can and will come up with new accounts, and new ID's as
> often as I need to....
Whether you are reported or not, you are still accountable for your
behavior.
I encourage who ever did this to continue to follow up and request that
Yahoo forward the information on to this persons actual ISP, since Yahoo
knows who the ISP is. Trolls are the bane of Usenet because their
behavior discourages use by a large majority of reasonal, respectful
people. While fighting internet trolls is a never ending battle, it may
deter or wake up some to the nature of their behavior. Actually, I'll
take a minute here to help.
IP Location: United States - Michigan - Lapeer - The Internet Ramp
Reverse IP: No websites hosted using this IP address
OrgName: The Internet Ramp
OrgID: IRMP
Address: G-5045 Miller Rd.
City: Flint
StateProv: MI
PostalCode: 48507
Country: US
NetRange: 216.40.128.0 - 216.40.191.255
CIDR: 216.40.128.0/18
NetName: TIR-BLK-1
NetHandle: NET-216-40-128-0-1
Parent: NET-216-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: DNS1.EARTHLINK.NET
NameServer: DNS2.EARTHLINK.NET
NameServer: DNS3.EARTHLINK.NET
Comment: ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE
RegDate: 1998-08-27
Updated: 2001-11-09
TechHandle: DAE4-ARIN
TechName: Domain Administrator, Administrator
TechPhone: +1-404-815-0770
TechEmail: ari...@corp.earthlink.net
> Hey any ex eckies listen to Harold's talk over the weekend? Gosh
> does he sound like he is going off the deep end or what? Lack of
> focus, and .... gesh where was the words of WISDOM, from the Wizard?
> Oh I forgot he talks in parables, and a lowly execkie wouldn't see it
> for what it really is/was?
Apparently in your case this is true. But thanks anyway for
contributing the money to Eckankar.<G>
> Any one have a bet who the next LIVING eck
> master might be?
Sure, I'll bet against you.<G>
@aloha.net Rich
"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
> So Liz, did you use this email addy as owner of the ECK related youth
> group you set up on yahoogroups? Could it be that this is directly
> related to your problem? It's one thing to come here and claim that
some
> ECKist did you wrong, like a merit badge to victimology, but another
> thing to be authentic enough to be honest about what actually
happened.
> I would imagine that ownership of that youth group was likely the main
> issue here. But that's just a guess from having moderated so many
groups
> over the years. Perhaps you could offer more information then just
"some
> of the eckthugs contacted yahoo and had my account shut down for
posting
> outside of the terms of service agreement....". You know, most of us
are
> aware of yahoo as an email source, and they seldom take such actions
> unless there's a real good reason for it. That's why I'm guessing this
> would be about the youth group.
>
> An important factor here for those who don't realize it. No ECK
related
> mailing list would have to bother contacting yahoo if you were
> misbehaving on a list. The format for dealing with this is to simply
ban
> your email addy. I don't think that being banned from a group
> automatically brings your account under suspicion from what I've seen.
> But if it does, then that would be the most likely answer. The other
> possibility might be the ECK related youth group you set up and owned.
> Yahoo takes children very seriously. Anyone who messes with a list for
> children gets a special second look by yahoo no matter what the
> subjective reasoning might be. They are very fair on this subject and
> act quickly.
>
> That would be directly linked to your behavior and certainly not on
the
> basis of a complaint. For those who don't know, it would take many
many
> complaints to get a notice from yahoo. Any moderator of a group can
tell
> you this. In fact you were a moderator and should know this already.
So
> I wonder why the necessity for the "eckthugs" nonsense. No one
honestly
> cares what you're doing Liz. It isn't as if there is any discussion
> about you leaving on any of the lists.... it just wasn't a topic once
> you signed off of HuChat. I don't know how you're handling your
> friendships behind the scenes but i can tell you that once you were
> gone, that was the end of the story.
Liz huh? Know a last name?
Whatever the reason, Yahoo does not give someone the boot without just
cause.
That she can't see this, is symptomatic of her problem. She can try to
hide from seeing their own issues, but it's obvious to some, including
Yahoo.
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> whitefeather wrote:
> >
>
> > The throw away e-mail accounts, and keeping our ID's private might
> > have something to do with the fact that, as what happened to me
> > recently, some of the eckthugs contacted yahoo and had my account
> > shut down for posting outside of the terms of service agreement....
> > LOL, so if they aren't worried about us ex eckies what do you call
> > that? I can and will come up with new accounts, and new ID's as
> > often as I need to....
> > Hey any ex eckies listen to Harold's talk over the weekend? Gosh
> > does he sound like he is going off the deep end or what? Lack of
> > focus, and .... gesh where was the words of WISDOM, from the
Wizard?
> > Oh I forgot he talks in parables, and a lowly execkie wouldn't see
it
> > for what it really is/was? Any one have a bet who the next LIVING
eck
> > master might be?
@aloha.net Rich
"whitefeather" <creative...@yahoo.com> wrote
> No
> matter, it does, and did happen that a group of people did report my
> addy to yahoo which was unfounded, and I suspect it may also have
> something to do with the fact that I posted a comment on Ford's site.
> It is questionable.... that I was shut out of the account just hours
> after this happened?
Ah! So now you want to blame it on Ford instead of Eckists.<G>
> Believe me, I have spoken with several ex eckies
> that have had this very thing happen to them! It does not surprise me
> in the least that the eckies here would claim it couldn't be them...
> and you all wonder why many ex eckies go under throw away accounts!
> :)
I don't wonder. They are afraid of being accountable for their behavior
seems to be the main reason. If they abided by agreements with
providers, were reasonable and respectful, no one, especially Eckists,
would care or have reason to report them. If there wasn't real abuse,
the providers would ignore it, and ex-Eckists would have nothing to
fear.
Whine and obfuscate all you like, but it is not the people that report,
but the providers who decide what is out of bounds and what is
acceptable. That several Ex-Ekists have been repeatedly shut out of
accounts speaks only to their unacceptable behavior, and not to their
delusional beliefs.
@aloha.net Rich
"SoulSinging" <twelves...@yahoo.com> wrote
>....im still waiting for him to
> send me a copy to read...he seems to be scared tho...
I don't know that he's scared, but a relative of mine that, how shall I
say it... isn't as supportive of Eckankar as I am... did order the free
copy that he offered and has yet to receive it. Has anyone received a
free copy, or was this just another false ploy on his part to make
himself look good?
@aloha.net Rich
"Sean" <lifeswha...@earth.org> wrote
>
> "whitefeather" <creative...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > The throw away e-mail accounts, and keeping our ID's private might
> > have something to do with the fact that, as what happened to me
> > recently, some of the eckthugs contacted yahoo and had my account
> > shut down for posting outside of the terms of service agreement....
> > LOL, so if they aren't worried about us ex eckies what do you call
> > that?
>
> Unsubstanciated innuendo .......... is this an automatic badge given
to all
> ex-eckist detactors?
LOL Not sure about the kudos they receive, but it is a common M.O.
> Elizabeth, why do you have to do this? How about a a bit of evidence
about
> such matters that you choose to post publicly to a newsgroup, just for
a bit
> of maturity for a change.
>
> You've been an Eckist on groups for a long time ........ has this EVER
> happened in real life before? How come you walk out one door and
straight
> away all your friends for years are now THUGS? This sort of imaginary
crap
> is simply unbelieveable, and quite sad that people are so affected in
this
> way.
Here's one explanation for her behavior:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q17526146
> > I can and will come up with new accounts, and new ID's as
> > often as I need to....
> > Hey any ex eckies listen to Harold's talk over the weekend? Gosh
> > does he sound like he is going off the deep end or what? Lack of
> > focus, and .... gesh where was the words of WISDOM, from the
Wizard?
> > Oh I forgot he talks in parables, and a lowly execkie wouldn't see
it
> > for what it really is/was? Any one have a bet who the next LIVING
eck
> > master might be?
>
> Mature, real mature. Enjoy your new set of friends, you're a quick
learner.
> But that's your choice and if it makes you feel comfortable and at
home
> ..... well go for it.
>
> I really enjoyed Sri Harold's talk, and obviously so did the thousands
in
> the audience. He's a great example for people and he sounded very
strong and
> full of love to me.
>
> As my friend said to me as I was leaving after the talk, "It's great
to be
> an ECKist isn't it?" I said it sure is!!!
>
> It's on till Nov. 1st if any people are interested.
> http://www.eckankar.org/Broadcast/
Thanks for mentioning that info Sean. Maybe a discussion about his talk
might be fruitful after the time for others to have had the opportunity
to hear it?
@aloha.net Rich
"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
Thanks Cher, for responding with facts and reason to Lurk. I just can't
be bothered to even read his tedious unbending nonsense anymore. While
it just feeds his compulsion to post this nonsense and I prefer to
starve it, your willingness to do so is a very useful for informing
those that may not already be aware of his aberrated blind eyed
behavior.
Sean
"Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote in message
news:bnlk9...@enews1.newsguy.com...
Yes it would be nice ............... but not here, it would be a waste of
time I believe.
Just look at Liz's attitude, and you know what the rest are like.
cheers
whitefeather
> Maybe this has to do with being banned on HuChat?
*** I wasn't banned from Hu-chat Cher. I in fact still can read from
the group, or post if the need is there (which can be verified if you
ask the mods). I remained within SOP during the rock throwing party
Steve Unfelt headed up for me there. I was contacted by several
hu-chat members thanking me for staying balanced through the whole
seemingly hurtful event.
I was at one time a moderator for three Eck groups, and also the
owner of the Youth group. I quietly left each of the groups, but
remained in a tech type position, (never posting)with the youth group
until the new mods were comfortable. If soulsinging (Deb Anne) were
honest she knows this to be a fact :). Any time there were questions
or issues behind the scenes with the youth group relating to eckankar,
I refered the moderator to Jassie at ESC. (This was only necessary
once in regards to Iranian Eckist wanting to join. Believe it on not,
I still follow the guidelines in that area <Smile>)
I left each group very quietly, and with some integrity I would
hope; not that anyone here would recognize this. I found no need to
be distructive, or sabotage the groups I moderated. I haven't really
changed that much from who I was a couple months ago.
Several here have tried to anaylize me, and my reasons for leaving
Eckankar. The fact is each assumption has been way off the mark. I
am not sitting here, disfunctional, a lost soul walking around with no
direction.
What I wrote was, with some sections removed for space:
"On my path I gleaned many types
of experiences each a part of my spiritual learning process. Each
year on the path called Eckankar (30 years), yes I learned from it...
it helped me move through illusion, realizing what was an "external
power, and what was an inner power".
I learned to be consciously aware of my higher self, and of my
potential as soul. What I found was my own "Middle path", or direct
path... It takes honesty, integrity, courage, self-respect, and love.
These are spiritual qualities and are very important for my
well-being".
<snip>
Eckankar appears to offer up for a membership
price, true enlightenment. If it can be bought, we are attracted to
it; All the secrets given to you including love, and protection, if
you pay a membership price.
<snip>
I realized I did not need to walk in anyones shadow, not even a
God-man on Earth.
<snip>
Here is the thing, I realized I didn't have to
project my needs as soul onto a Master, and expect enlightenment.
There will always be someone or some path out there willing to take a
piece of your soul (money)... rendering you less powerful, and
themselves more powerful, (control over you, and in turn become more
the richer)".
*** I have faced "my" truth, and the need to leave the path. It was
a painful choice, as some have seen, with my remaining family members
still members of Eck. I could not stay, just because my family
thought I should. My siblings recognize the courage it took,
knowing that some of my remaining family would disown me. At this
point my siblings all respect my choice, and feel that allowing a
person the freedom to walk their own path, does not threaten them or
their spiritual beliefs in any way! To me that is spiritual
maturity... sometimes I faulter still in this area, as people within
this NG do as well, Eckist or not....
>
> That seems more like coincidence to me. I can see that you're trying
> hard to put your life into a new perspective here, demonizing people in
> your imagination isn't going to help the healing process. Normally for
> something like that to happen, Liz, it means that there is some strong
> emotional karmic connection between the people involved. Someone takes
> it upon themself to lash out because they're hurt. No offense meant to
> you in this instance, but I do believe that you could empathize with
> that feeling. I don't know of anyone that has such an emotional
> connection to you that would behave this way.
*** Cher, I honestly agree with this observation. But doesn't it
seem rather odd, that just last week I asked why Rich is posting
someones address, or their location etc... and the very next day yahoo
shuts my account down. Now of course we know yahoo isn't going to
name names, but once they understood the issues of having just left a
cult.... coincidences; posting here, Ford's sight, asking innocent
questions.... okay, maybe. But I have my doubts. I am letting this
drop now, and will still post when a topic seems of interest to me. I
suppose if I get shut out of another account I can call that
harassment! And will follow up on it.
>
> Now, that's not to say that there haven't been posters to this group
> that have had letters sent off to their ISP's. Sure... someone steps
> grossly over the boundaries and catches someone else off guard... but
> you haven't had any major battles here. See what I mean?
*** yep I do... but how about the fact that maybe someone wants to
just "Show off their thuggness" for a lack of a better word. ;-) By
me being their example.... do you see what I am saying?
> I guess what
> I'm saying is that for all the time that I've known you, you were just a
> really intelligent and nice person. I never saw you go head to head with
> anyone that was apparent to any group. So you've got me at a
> disadvantage on this one, Liz.
*** Cher I honestly appreciate you as a person. I have always been
fond of you, and the lessons I gathered from our past interactions.
I would love to be able to interact here with you and others as well,
dropping the Eck/Ex Eck persona, and just be real! Is that possible
here?
Take good care Cher :)
Elizabeth
> I'm sorry that you've gone through this,
> and am glad that your account got straightened out. It does appear that
> something good came of it all. I'm just confused as to why you seem to
> believe that after all the time you've been this really nice lady that
> anyone would treat you this way. It just doesn't strike my heart this
> way. I hope that you're wrong. <smile>
>
> cheryl............
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> > arelurker wrote:
> > There are lots of reasons why a critic does not want their identity
> > revealed and it is not necessary being ashamed of what they post as you
> > and Cher have suggested.
>
> But being ashamed of what one writes to a newsgroup is a prime cause of
> interest where anonymity is abused for the sake of unrelenting anger and
> hatred without consequences.
That could be one reason. Your presumption that such is the prime reason.
The point of such a discussion was
> something called "accountability". This issue is being taken very
> seriously by professional researchers who have been studying the
> treatment of people in and out of dangerous religions. The reality that
> many exmembers use this time of separation from their former path to
> demonize
Cher, you're preaching to the choir. I make more intelligent arguments
and comments about this than you do. The trouble with your commentary is
you are still at the level where you are demonizing critics and this
simple fuels the rancor. Because you don't deal with your own tendency
to demonize, you have to bounce it off other people at every turn. Your
act of seeing this in others is becomes an exercise in yo not having to
take responsibility for your own tendency to demonize. This doesn't mean
that every time you cry out that exmembers are demonizing that it is you
just projecting. There are times when you are accurate. However, even
when you are accurate you end up demonizing people who are demonizing
and rancor sets in.
the people and the path where no true evidence of danger exists
> has become a main focal point in these studies to the degree that many
> proponents of the anticult community are now second guessing their
> positions on these issues based on a need for further proof from these
> people. This has been most helpful in removing many of the untrue
> allegations about many religions under siege from the anticult
> community.
>
> > Critics may not want thier address information posted with the
> > suggestion that people call their wives and kids.
>
> People can use throwaway accounts for email, but still use their first
> name when posting to this group.
And people can do what the want and not feel compelled to do it Cher's
way or else.
There are so many allegations about
> Eckankar made by supposed former members, including fear tactics like
> the one lurk mentions. One instance of an exmember challenging an ECKist
> to find his phone number and suddenly this is considered common place
> behavior by all ECKists.
I never said it was commonplace. However it is commonplace for Rich to
post Alf's address and phone number even when told to stop because he
doesn't like how he posts here. Here's what Rich has recently said about
posting people's address information:
**************
The only *real* threat I have _ever_ made is that I would post Alfie's
address and phone number if he continued to lie about me like this. I
hoped that if others contacted his wife and kids they might be able to
reason with him.
**************
>
> > Critics may not want it to be know they were once a member of a cult
> > since this could effect their current employment of future employment
> > opportunities.
>
> Eckankar is only listed as a cult in the anticult community because of
> the efforts of this group of exmembers here.
Beside the point and is probably inaccurate.
The efforts of david lane
> lead to a christian publication and interest in this path, but there has
> been only minimal effect on the teachings or it's membership because of
> his efforts. Over the years, this path has been studied in many
> religious studies departments and has consistently been shown to be at
> the very worst benign.
Eckankar is seen as a new emerging religion by
> most and not at all interested in any form behavior that would be
> considered as dangerous to anyone or their family.
I think there is danger in eckankar. If you can imagine a large
dysfunctional family where the members are damaged and arrogant and
don't have boundaries and routinely trod on other people's boundaries, I
think you're getting a piece of what it is like.
It is true eckankar isn't dangerous in the sense of being held
physically like some cult, eckankar only uses psychological techniques
to retain members by saying bad things will happen to them if they leave.
However, the same dynamic that occurs in the more dangerous cults is
present in many members. This dynamic is played out on this newsgroup
every day by the fanatics.
>
> > Critic may not want letters written to their current religious
> > affiliation from childish eckists which has happend.
>
> This is an unfounded rumor that recently popped up here via lurk.
Look it up in the archives. I think the guy's name was David. Maybe
Samorez remembers.
There
> is no proof that any such event took place. What good would it do to
> write to the leader of a different religion telling them they had a
> member behaving childishly?
Ask Steve why he did it?
The closest I can come to this sort of
> behavior would have been sharon comstock posing as an interested party
> in Buddhism and posting to their newsgroup seeking their views on
> Eckankar. This fear is unfounded and frankly doesn't make sense to
> anyone who is a member of Eckankar.
>
> > Critics may not want their licensing boards contacted with bogus
> > complaints and deal with the beauracries since licensing boards have to
> > take serious every nut case like Cher that might lodge a complaint.
>
> The only instance of this occurring was with one colleen russell on this
> newsgroup.
All it takes is one time for people to have the impression that you
eckists are ruthless in your defense of eckankar.
She started posting about being a founding member of Eckankar
> and then posted about her former husband being a pedophile and making
> accusations about this being common place, which is viscous and untrue.
Sounds like you have a strong disagreement to the point of twisting.
> Then she started posting of her credentials as a therapist and inviting
> those who had been injured to join her. All of this behavior is
> repugnant in itself but not unusual on this newsgroup.
This is what you all were accusing her of at the time
What caught
> everyone's attention was her use of unsubstantiated stories and
> exaggerations about this path followed by her posting messages that
> contained her license number in california.
Her sig line? Does take much for you all to go wild does it?
This is in nearly any state
> of the U.S. a violation of therapists ethics. The matter was discussed
> with her board, and with colleen herself on this newsgroup. It was above
> board and based on concern for her patients.
I wasn't aware this was a violation of ethics.
Your motivation being concern for her patient is laughable and
disingenuous and not at all consistent with your reactive behavior and
anger directed at her.
Shortly after this event
> she set up a mailing list for former members with her license
> information in the welcome page. She later removed this information and
> replaced it with a disclaimer stating: "This is not a therapy group,
> although it may be therapeutic." This says that the actions of those who
> were concerned had been taken seriously.
If this is true, then I would say Colleen was simply naive about her use
of her title and the Rabid little eckists who couldn't argue the points
she made on the newsgroup decided to use a technicality to drive her
from the group. You all should be proud of yourselves.
But you know what? I wouldn't be so proud if I were you. You know why?
Because this is the same aggressive mentality that keeps causing
problems for eckankar. It is the same aggression Darwin showed towards
Lane's paper that turned it into a book. It is the same aggression that
Harold used to respond to Ford that turned that into a book. And it is
the same aggression some of you eckists use here that keeps critic
posting and posting and posting.
You eckists will never learn.
Only a short time later colleen
> cross posted a message from her group that she felt gave a good view of
> cult damage. She did this without permission from the author of that
> post and in effect placed this woman in a most embarrassing position.
> Her sense of confidentiality being a member of a moderated newsgroup had
> been compromised entirely. I share this instance, because it most
> certainly showed that concern of this woman's callous disregard for her
> ethical code of behavior was correct.
I see Cher has a bank of information she keeps on Colleen. Hmmm.
>
> > Critic may want to only focus the discussion on the merits of the
> > debates or exchanges and not have to deal with ad hominem arguments.
>
> I find this particular point to be almost laughable.
I thought you might since you are an advocate of posting private
information and calling people's relative and calling licensing boards.
Please take a look
> through the archives and see how often a poster who is an ECKist
> disagrees with a point, and is suddenly attacked in the most personal
> ways having nothing whatsoever to do with Eckankar or the issues
> surrounding the path of Eckankar.
Yes personal attacks happen by critics towards eckists and by eckists
towards critics.
The important point is you are only seeing the critics who are attacking
eckists, you don't see the eckists who are attacking critics. As long as
you remain unaware, you will simply fight your shadow, honey.
>
> > Critic may want to protect their children from being harrassed by people
> > wanting to call and get them to agree that their father is posint
> > incorrectly on a newsgroup as Rich has threatened to do.
>
> Rich joked with joe concerning what his children would say if they saw
> what their father posted here.
Here's what Rich said:
"Maybe I should I call and talk to his daughters about their father's
delusions? ;-) I'd bet they'd agree with me. Wouldn't that make for
some revealing quotes here?"<GGG>
Given Rich's history of posting people private information on this
newsgroup and the oasis website, the fact that he call critics before,
and his general belligerent disposition with those with whom he
disagrees, it is prudent to take the above quote as a threat despite the
GGG.
Instantly lurk took this to mean it was a
> real threat and has taken it upon himself to go so far as to insist that
> this is of the same level of threat as the attacks of 9/11. :-\
No where did I assert this was the same level as the 9/11 attack as I
have already explained to you Cher. I made a comment about Rich and his
thinking being the same variety, but not the same degree as other
religious fanatics. The same religious fanatical dynamic that underlies
the terrorist underlie Rich's thinking and your's, I might add. Harji's
Jihad, eh?
One only
> needs to look at the threat that lurk made only a few posts later
> suggesting that detractors could easily contact Rich's place of
> employment and share his behavior and membership in a cult!
That was a hypothetical to help you and Rich understand your actions and
behaviors.
Here's another hypothetical to help you understand what your are supporting:
Suppose critic, as a way to respond to something and eckist said on the
group here, decide to research the eckist address and look up all
his/her neighbors and let them know that the eckists belong to a cult
and if they have any young gullible adults in their twenties in their
house the they might want to be cautious.
Now do you and Rich see how absurd you all are being? Is this the kind
of escalation you all are wanting to see?
By the Way, this particular scenario was one that some eckist suggest
here last week about when the eckists suggested to call Alf's neighbors
to show them how he posts. Was that you Cher? Regardless, I was being
hypothetical where an eckists was being serious.
Of course
> this was blown off by lurk when pointed out to him that this was a
> threat of escalation. He submitted that it was hypothetical. He refuses
> to accept that Rich's instance was also hypothetical.
Rich's comment above is not a hypothetical comment. It is Rich acting as
an enforcer and trying to "clean up" Joe's behavior by threaten to call
his children.
Lurk