Jonh and ACIM
Pieter
Hi John,
Your behavior and use of language
here in this ng clearly demonstrate that
you no longer study the (whole of the)
Course, let alone on a daily basis, since
they are in poignant contrast with the
book and above all its message.
Why let yourself become a stranger to
the Course? Do you realize this makes
a farce of your whole way of acting here?
One really cannot serve both the ego and
spirit. Serving one is denying the other,
since there is no overlap between the two.
Please realize that you are a holy Son of
God, and that what does not belong to
Him does not belong to you either.
Sincerely yours,
Pieter.
Carrie
All we can do is come from ourself and our own way of thinking
and seeing things.
I just read something John wrote:
"And when you idiots pool your resources, I'd say its more than clear
at heart you are totalitarian Nazis"
I thought WHAT a terrible thing to write about someone else,
especially on a Course in Miracles group! (how did Nazi's get back
here as a topic again?)
But, I realized, that is his choice, how he wants to see people, what
he wants to write about them, and it's only words (little black marks)
on my computer screen. I give it all and any meaning it has for me. I
can, as easily think "here is someone feeling so alone and powerless
and separated/unconnected from God (Source) he's lashing out at anyone
and everyone, as a response to this.
And what is the response we are taught to give- either love or a
call for it?
If we can't do this, then next is forgiveness. I don't think it's
forgiveness for the brother, but for "myself" for seeing it (him) that
way.
". Forgiveness is the answer to attack of any kind. So is attack
deprived of its effects, and hate is answered in the name of love."
Because of John, and his Nazi remark(s) I've gotten myself all
into feeling love and peace and Connected, and this is a great way to
start a day.
Thanks to John, who is a wonderful teacher in his own way- and his
remark(s) which (at first) I thought were something bad, negative, and
coming from ego.
Nothing changed but MY thinking about it.
Reality Scan
> Hi John,
>
> Your behavior and use of language
> here in this ng clearly demonstrate that
> you no longer study the (whole of the)
> Course, let alone on a daily basis, since
> they are in poignant contrast with the
> book and above all its message.
Really, Pieter? An amazing statement when this ng is being assaulted
by some very nasty Nazi Gestapo cult tactics employed to shut down
discussion of certain topics. And you want to address my behavior?
You phony bastard! Where were you when I was being unfairly,
maliciously and slanderously accused of felony sexual indiscretions?
You and others invite, tolerate, and defend with course quotes flame
board conditions and Nazi cult tactics, as appropriate conditions for
course discussion. Then you throw the guilt bomb and disapproval card
when anyone bucks the system.
You stupid bastard. Do you really think I'm going to let low IQ idiot
like you, who can't even make the elementary deduction that a flame
board is not appropriate for course study, to guilt bomb me into
accepting cult abuse and Gestapo intimidation tactics because it
doesn't meet with the approval of a goddamn newsgroup saint?
Hey, fuck you. First if you are a course student you shouldn't be
judging me. Moreover, course study, course belief, behavior or
language has never been criteria for newsgroup participation.
Moreover and clearly I'm not here as a course student. You know this.
We've discussed this and yet you willing mis-represent my position so
you can structure your guilt bomb.
You phony bastard. You watch daily your brother being abused, torment,
and mind fucked and you think this is God and Love and concern for
your brother and an appropriate way to learn and discuss The Course.
Despite the fact, that no one outside of few asshole like yourself
believe this, or that a flame formate makes any sense at all for any
type of spiritual discussion. And you have a the freakn' nerve to
talk about making a farce of The Course!
I said before when spirituality veers from common expectations of
ethical behavior there is a reason, and generally a no good reason.
And that is even more so when course interpretation does not meet
common ethical expectations.
Reality Scan
> I just read something John wrote:
> "And when you idiots pool your resources, I'd say its more than clear
> at heart you are totalitarian Nazis"
>
> I thought WHAT a terrible thing to write about someone else,
> especially on a Course in Miracles group! (how did Nazi's get back
> here as a topic again?)
Well geez, it must be Tuesday morning! All psychotic moralists of
TRCM have to have their morning cup of denial and smirk.
Carrie
You cut out what I wrote out of context, changing it into something
it wasn't and isn't.
Reality Scan
You cut what I said out of context and changed it into something it
wasn't and isn't.
Beside Carrie, this is only how you choose to see it. If you FEEL this
way, maybe you should change your mind about it.
Pieter
news:23ae5505-02fc-4e9a...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 12, 8:14 am, "Pieter" <hrdou...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>> Hi John,
>>
>> Your behavior and use of language
>> here in this ng clearly demonstrate that
>> you no longer study the (whole of the)
>> Course, let alone on a daily basis, since
>> they are in poignant contrast with the
>> book and above all its message.
>
> Really, Pieter?
Yes. If it is your book, why don't you
read the whole Course frequently?
> An amazing statement when this ng is being assaulted
> by some very nasty Nazi Gestapo cult tactics employed to shut down
> discussion of certain topics.
John, you choose an ego point of view,
and then you are amazed that you
literally experience a world of attack?
*Any* understanding of the Course is
*impossible* from an ego point of view.
> And you want to address my behavior?
>
> You phony bastard! Where were you when I was being unfairly,
> maliciously and slanderously accused of felony sexual indiscretions?
Have you ever come across the place where
the Course says: beware of the temptation to
perceive yourself unfairly treated? Of course
this is explained extensively.
> You and others invite, tolerate, and defend with course quotes flame
> board conditions and Nazi cult tactics, as appropriate conditions for
> course discussion. Then you throw the guilt bomb and disapproval card
> when anyone bucks the system.
I do not "invite, tolerate, and defend" the ego
thought system. From the Course you could
know that it has not any power but the power
one *gives* it. When one sees and experiences
it is completely illusory, because its foundation
is separation from life, one no longer bothers
what it says or does.
> You stupid bastard. Do you really think I'm going to let low IQ idiot
> like you, who can't even make the elementary deduction that a flame
> board is not appropriate for course study, to guilt bomb me into
> accepting cult abuse and Gestapo intimidation tactics because it
> doesn't meet with the approval of a goddamn newsgroup saint?
>
> Hey, fuck you. First if you are a course student you shouldn't be
> judging me. Moreover, course study, course belief, behavior or
> language has never been criteria for newsgroup participation.
>
> Moreover and clearly I'm not here as a course student. You know this.
> We've discussed this and yet you willing mis-represent my position so
> you can structure your guilt bomb.
>
> You phony bastard. You watch daily your brother being abused, torment,
> and mind fucked and you think this is God and Love and concern for
> your brother and an appropriate way to learn and discuss The Course.
> Despite the fact, that no one outside of few asshole like yourself
> believe this, or that a flame formate makes any sense at all for any
> type of spiritual discussion. And you have a the freakn' nerve to
> talk about making a farce of The Course!
>
> I said before when spirituality veers from common expectations of
> ethical behavior there is a reason, and generally a no good reason.
> And that is even more so when course interpretation does not meet
> common ethical expectations.
I guess you know the saying "one judges
other people's character by one's own"?
You say: "I'm not here as a course student",
and you emphasized not too long ago that
your behavior here is pure ego. That's why
I have to repeat that
one really cannot serve both the ego and
spirit. Serving one is *denying* the other,
Reality Scan
> John, you choose an ego point of view,
> and then you are amazed that you
> literally experience a world of attack?
Oh, geez --stuff your phony moralizing. You think like a freakn'
postal clerk with a niche for everything.
The issue is ethical behavior associated with the name chosen --A
Course in Miracles.
As far as I can see the accepted and tolerated behavior associated
with ACIM per this newsgroup is religious baiting, criminal
cyberstalking, and a whole history of nasty, cult mind fucking.
Now you dumb bastard, if you had a half of a brain or any education at
all you'd be concerned with both the integrity and appearance of
integrity of A Course in Miracles. Why? Because it it ain't your's --A
Course in Miracles belongs to the world.
The Catholic Church is being destroyed economically and spiritually by
the pedophile scandle. Why? Because reckless, self-centered bastards
with God on their lips and not an ounce of personal integrity molested
kids.
And yeah --they had an out and an excuse too. God forgives them --
after all they are priests. Hell, they can forgive each other. Makes
sense you dim wit? Yeah, it makes so much sense its effectively
destroying a 2000 year old institution.
And what would you do? Look in your little niche and pull out a
morality speech for the molested kids:
Oh, you choose a ego point of view, then are amazed you see a world of
attack."
People have an expectation of honesty, integrity and transparency
when dealing with A Course in Miracles. Its not up to a dumb fuck like
you to offer every excuse imaginable why it doesn't matter whether
Course study is dishonest, unethical, secretive and manipulative. Why?
Again --it ain't yours.
That's why educated, professional people like Wapnick, Schutch,
Williamson, Jampolsky, etc, who UNDERSTAND trust is built on
integrity, are the public face of A Course in Miracles, and you are
not. And you can bet your ass, they have read the Course as much or
more than you have and most likely understand it better, and you can
bet they do not want religious baiting, cyberstalking and nasty cults
associated with A Course in Miracles.
Which means they don't read in a nihilism which the Course doesn't
contain and doesn't condone, and you are way to dumb to understand.
Carrie.is.a...@gmail.com
_______________________________
And there you have it.
It should be obvious to all by now that John, has a grave
physiological problem.
I say we keep him in our prayers in his hour of darkness.
peace two you John.
~ CIAR
Carrie.is.a...@gmail.com
_________________________________________
So there you have it.
If it wasn't obvious before it should be by now that John is suffering
from an extreme physiological problem.
We should all hold him in our prayers in his hours of darkness.
Peace to you John
~ CIAR
Carrie.is.a...@gmail.com
Carrie.is.a...@gmail.com
Carrie.is.a...@gmail.com
So there you have it.
If it wasn't obvious before it should be by now that John is suffering
from extreme physiological problems.
We should all hold him in our prayers in his hours of darkness.
Peace to you John.
Also those who have recently supported John's anti-course behavior
should also think about getting some physcological testing done, in
hopes of someday creating a better world for yourself.
___________________________
Deborah
<QQJ...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> John, you choose an ego point of view,
>> and then you are amazed that you
>> literally experience a world of attack?
>
>Oh, geez --stuff your phony moralizing. You think like a freakn'
>postal clerk with a niche for everything.
>
>The issue is ethical behavior associated with the name chosen --A
>Course in Miracles.
Do you think your behavior here is ethical, John? Pieter implores
you, as does the course, to rise above the battlefield and you respond
by going at him like he's a punching bag. Why not go to a gym and
take your angst out there?
Deborah (BC)
Deborah
You're part of the "we" that Cletus denies he's part of, aren't you?
Bunch of interlopers along with Ellen and Debra whose only ongoing
interest in being here is shutting John up about eots. Bah.
I don't like the way John behaves, but I don't think you (that's the
"royal you") have the slghtest business being here. You have no
interest in discussing ACIM.
Deborah (BC)
ellie
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:28:42 -0800 (PST), Reality Scan
>
I believe Pieter and the Course implores all of us.
Pieter
John, I repeat what I said:
If ACIM is your book, why don't
you frequently read *the whole* of it ?
When reading it selectively, it is
impossible to grasp its meaning.
"This course will be believed entirely,
or not at all. For it is wholly true or
wholly false, and cannot be but
partially believed."
Lotus_Bloom
"Deborah" <deb...@not.com> wrote in message
news:ur65r3l3kbf7fd2f3...@4ax.com...
>
> You're part of the "we" that Cletus denies he's part of, aren't you?
> Bunch of interlopers along with Ellen and Debra whose only ongoing
> interest in being here is shutting John up about eots. Bah.
>
> I don't like the way John behaves, but I don't think you (that's the
> "royal you") have the slghtest business being here. You have no
> interest in discussing ACIM.
>
> Deborah (BC)
You are a liar Deborah and your sneaky little jabs could use a dose of
honesty, along with your brother John.
Carrie.is.a...@gmail.com
You are now going into our circle of prayer deborah.
May you one day see the light.
CIAR
Carrie
When was the last time you discussed ACIM?
Write something, and I'll join you in it. Probably ellen, Debra, Cletus and
"Carrie is always right" will join you, too.
John will come along and try and hijack the thread. But, if nobody gives
attention to it, it won't work, will it?
Reading down this group today, it seems the main topic is the various
ACIM/urtext files and where they are, how to get them and how to search
them. Is the actual file(s) more important than reading it and, at least
attempting to put it into one's life? Or, is it only the number of files,
differnt files and formats one can find, create and download that matters?
The one with the most files is the most "Spiritual" or something?
Carrie
Isn't the ultimate point what *I* am doing here? And not someone else?
I know it's easy to forget this, and I forget a lot. But, we (who claim to
believe in ACIM and what it says) always have the choice of remembering it,
and coming from it.
Carrie
"ellie" <miracl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fb4d4e7c-c7e2-4854...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
I just heard something on a tape, that stuck in my mind and reminded me
of this ng. Though, I also think posting quotes comes across (to some) like
lectures. Even on a course-themed group.
"Every loving thought is true, everything else is an appeal for help and
healing, regardless of the form it takes. Can anyone be justified in
responding with anger to a brother's plea for help?"
I think I have that correct (the wording)
And, it's only something *I* have to remember, doesn't depend on anyone
else.
I've been told I don't know/understand what the course REALLY says, but
that's what it says to me.
Carrie
"Pieter" <hrdo...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
news:47b2b3da$0$21967$bf49...@news.tele2.nl...
like)?
Katie
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:28:42 -0800 (PST), Reality Scan
>
TRCM has always had punchers and punching bags. John is only doing
what he's been incited and rewarded for doing. I don't see you
opening your yap when he's pumping his fists at the Evil Outsiders.
You've done a fair amount of punching yourself, Debs, especially
during your control-freak campaign to shut down the newsgroup. Maybe
it's time for you to address the source of the problems here instead
of the symptoms. But that would require you questioning yourself,
rather than practicing ACIM the correct way by pointing your finger at
everyone else, so we won't be holding our breath.
Katie
Yes, they both implore us to point the finger at That Other Guy since
we are already far above the battlefield ourselves. We can clearly
see what you and Pieter believe you are implored to practice, Ellen.
It's called self-delusion and arrogance, two qualities that can be
found in every known ACIMhead, so you're not even all that Special.
Carrie
<Carrie.is.a...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:62bdbb1e-b186-4d91...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>CIAR
May you one day see the light about Deborah- who is perfect just the way
she is.
Reality Scan
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:28:42 -0800 (PST), Reality Scan
>
> >> John, you choose an ego point of view,
> >> and then you are amazed that you
> >> literally experience a world of attack?
>
> >Oh, geez --stuff your phony moralizing. You think like a freakn'
> >postal clerk with a niche for everything.
>
> >The issue is ethical behavior associated with the name chosen --A
> >Course in Miracles.
>
> Do you think your behavior here is ethical, John?
~My, my, Deborah. Such poor thinking skills for a law school grad.
You can't get past an ad homenin argument even when the reasons its a
logical fallacy was explained to you in detail.
The thesis statement of the argument you are avoiding is: "People have
an expectation of honesty, integrity and transparency when dealing
with A Course in Miracles."
Do you agree with this? Of course you do. Its a self-evident statement
unless one has some sub rosa agenda for A Course in Miracles. Who here
or anywhere wouldn't agree? I mean at least in principle and given lip
service. If any one disagrees, step up and give an argument why people
shouldn't have an expectancy of honesty, integrity and transparency
when dealing with A Course in Miracles.
Now we should agree to this statement in principle --and you, Pieter,
Carrie, Ellen should agree ---yet I'm being told in effect that when I
logged on to TRCM for course discussion, I should not have had any
expectations of honesty, integrity or transparency when dealing with A
Course in Miracles on TRCM. Moreover, and clearly this is what in
effect is being told to any person logging on to this newsgroup.
So who is being inconsistent here? Me or the proponents of Flame board
discussion of A Course in Miracles? There is no doubt to the answer,
at least in the larger world apart from a handful of people who agree
with this inconsistency.
Moreover and clearly what can be more obvious than this inconsistency
speaks for, or it least tolerates and condones expectations of course
study as dishonest, unethical, secretive and manipulative.
I blasted Pieter because he holds this inconsistency and wishes to use
course quotes and course concepts against the notion that people
should expect honesty, integrity and transparency when dealing with
Course study. Which isn't hard to do when freedom is mistaken for
nihilism which the Course doesn't contain and doesn't condone.
Moreover there is a difference between being ethical and civil. I
consider my behavior ethical though not always civil. Moreover,
purposefully ambiguous expectations of newsgroup behavior has always
been used to squash criticism of this newsgroup and cloud the
expectancy of honesty, integrity and transparency for Course study and
discussion.
So --my, my. What do we have here? The gathering hordes of the
irrational pushing by nearly every dirty, unethical means, that I'm
wrong, I'm nuts, I'm inconsistent, when it seems to me and clearly,
that I'm nearly the only one here who takes the time to structure a
rational argument --or even addresses a rational argument.
Reality Scan
> "Deborah" <debo...@not.com> wrote in message
~Lies? Whose lying here? Do you really expect anyone to believe
"Cletus," came in just at the time you were being blasted for trying
to shut of Bill about Eots?
Anyone can review the Cletus post and clearly see the totalitarian,
Nazi methods willing used to squash discussion about the Eots cult.
Honesty? Hell, "honesty," is not an operative word for no good, Nazi
cult idiots like you who are the epitome of spirituality as dishonest,
unethical, secretive and manipulative.
My opinion? Hell, I'd say its right on with Bill's hard-learned
opinion of you Nazi assholes.
Reality Scan
> "Reality Scan" <QQJo...@gmail.com> schreef in berichtnews:3ac30357-0589-4693...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Pieter,you can repeat all you want. If you are a course students with
the standards you demand of me, then clearly you shouldn't be judging
my behavior or entering the battlefield.
On the other hand if you wish to make a comment or argument, then
address the argument you presented.
Deborah
>On Feb 13, 7:18 am, "Lotus_Bloom" <dwal...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>> "Deborah" <debo...@not.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ur65r3l3kbf7fd2f3...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > You're part of the "we" that Cletus denies he's part of, aren't you?
>> > Bunch of interlopers along with Ellen and Debra whose only ongoing
>> > interest in being here is shutting John up about eots. Bah.
>>
>> > I don't like the way John behaves, but I don't think you (that's the
>> > "royal you") have the slghtest business being here. You have no
>> > interest in discussing ACIM.
>>
>> > Deborah (BC)
>>
>> You are a liar Deborah and your sneaky little jabs could use a dose of
>> honesty, along with your brother John.
I'll nominate this one for "best projection" of the year.
Deborah (BC)
Reality Scan
> "Deborah" <debo...@not.com> wrote in message
When have you? The last time we saw your demonstration of
"discussion," you were attempting to argue that you don't argue while
you were arguing.
>
> Write something, and I'll join you in it. Probably ellen, Debra, Cletus and
> "Carrie is always right" will join you, too.
My, my --now that's a motley Crew of Nazi cult assholes, anonymous
trolls and yourself.
And not a one of them has any allegiance for A Course in Miracles
except as one of thousands of "paths."
I guess the relativity of course teachings in the sub text of the
dishonest, unethical, secretive and manipulative is a the basis for
course discussion. Especially when "course discussion" is code for
"mind fuck games."
Carrie
"Reality Scan" <QQJ...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:82e9ce05-c997-43fd...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
I would think there's an expectation of kindness, respect, not being
lectured, accused of things, called names, insulted, put down, etc on a
Course in Miracles group.
But then people come on TRC-M and read what you write.
I don't know about integrity and transparency, but I guess you are
honest. Writing what you honestly think, feel and believe.
And, of course, you always have justification of it handy.
Carrie
I do
>
> I guess the relativity of course teachings in the sub text of the
> dishonest, unethical, secretive and manipulative is a the basis for
> course discussion. Especially when "course discussion" is code for
> "mind fuck games."
HYSIIHIIFY
Carrie
Where did bill call anyone Nazi assholes?
Though he has said if he DIDN'T agree with what you say for him, he'd say
so.
Deborah
Nice try Carrie, but the last time I discussed ACIM was on February
10th (if you don't count the Ur download discussion which was
yesterday). Look up the thread called "Re: Quick Survey... About
Miscreation". I would have continued with it but Lee apparently
dropped out, perhaps due to interference from Katie and yourself.
Deborah (BC)
Katie
>
> I'll nominate this one for "best projection" of the year.
>
> Deborah (BC)
Well, after all, it is the "I'm rubber/you're glue" "religion".
Katie
> I would have continued with it but Lee apparently
> dropped out, perhaps due to interference from Katie and yourself.
>
> Deborah (BC)
So, I take it that you don't support Queenie Lee's strategies and
tactics to get us to drop out then. I mean, you're not a finger-
pointing hypocrite, or anything are you, Debs?
What has ACIM done for you lately, Debs? There's a Curse discussion
no one wants to have with an Evil Outsider who ain't buying the "I'm
sooooooooooooooo much better now!!!" bullshit line. Or the "you just
have to try it yourself so you can understand" pile of crap either.
Got anything new and different to contribute to the glaringly missing
body of evidence to support the validity or usefulness of ACIM? We
could use a little counter-balance to all the proof that it is a
destructive mindfuck for hypocritical finger-pointers, couldn't we?
Carrie
I saw that discussion and purposely kept out of it, because I wasn't
clear what (exactly) the point of it was, I had no opinion about it, and if
I tried to come up with one, for discussion, I figured Lee would write a
long post pointing how how and why I was wrong.
If I did get into it at some point, it was AFTER any course discussion had
taken place.
Since I've been looking at the ng in Outlook Express (FIND: posts from
today) I'll have to look at the overall thread in google and see where you
see me (and Katie) interfering and driving Lee away.
What would you like todiscuss about ACIM now? Or, is your post here course-
related?
Reality Scan
Yeah, Ms Carrie apparently misses all the times she helps Katie Dean
wreck a course discussion thread.
Or turns a course discussion into a "HYSIIHIIFY" mind fuck game.
Or turns a course discussion into a rant on how she or Katie are so
mistreated.
Katie
>
> Or turns a course discussion into a rant on how she or Katie are so
> mistreated.
It provides a departure from the all your rants about how Carrie and I
are mistreating you.
Reality Scan
Really? If you saw the Deborah's recent Course discussion, then why
would you challenge her as to when she last had a "course
discussion." ?????
You're not trying to dishonestly discredit Deborah with you with you
slimy bag of tricks --are you?
You're not attempting to deflect your slimy discretization tactics by
complaining Lee actually engaging in discussion with you?
Deborah
Carrie's also claiming Katie didn't jump into that thread until after
the discussion was over. The discussion was ongoing as of February
10th, and Katie jumped in, more than once, on February 8th. Carrie
jumped in in support of Katie that same day, albeit on a new thread
that involved a subject line change. It was derived from the original
thread. So Carrie's got some splaining to do with this latest bit of
BS. It's all in the archives.
Deborah (BC)
Lotus_Bloom
>
> - Show quoted text -
Typical lying sidestep.
Reality Scan
Screw you Katie. You're a goddamn nut and Internet sadist. Clearly you
and Carrie hooked up because she was one too.
What you and Carrie both dislike is dealing with the fact that people
have an expectancy of honesty, integrity and transparency when dealing
with A Course in Miracles and clearly 99.9% of the time across of
formates and venues --this expectation is met.
Yet your methods for criticizing the course as "cult" are clearly
dishonest, unethical, secretive and manipulative. And clearly these
are cult values and the way cults operate and the values cults teach.
While there is no evidence at all that A Course in Miracles ever
operates this way, unless its being mis-interpreted by cult minds for
a cult agenda.
What's amazing is how all you cult-rained minds rallying in various
ways against the Course being honest and transparent, and associated
with integrity, push all this shit talk, but couldn't yourselves stand
the light of day, or the least bit of scrutiny for honesty, integrity
or transparency.
Reality Scan
~Well geez, maybe we should mark every time you or Ellen or "Mr. Clet"
or Carrie have used the projection retort, and mark it as the "Typical
Lying Sidestep."
Gee, it ain't so funny when you are on the other side of the smirk!
Carrie
"Deborah" <deb...@not.com> wrote in message
news:p8f6r3pphehe5u8an...@4ax.com...
>
I looked it up on google. I didn't get into the thread till after the
subject was changed and John had already started writing about his usual
(Gestapho eots) and you (and I) responded to Cletus. Since I use Outlook
Express and put in FIND and the posts for today, I don't see them in the
thread they started in. Only what the topic is for the one I respond to.
I didn't connect the one I responded to (and you and John and Cletus were
writing in) with Lee and his survey question, which I had purposely stayed
out of.
Carrie
I looked up the thread in google, I didn't get into it till the subject had
changed, and I first responded to something Cletus wrote.
I don't know (or care) what Katie did in it.
Carrie
> On Feb 13, 1:50 pm, Katie <cosf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 13, 2:46 pm, Reality Scan <QQJo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Or turns a course discussion into a rant on how she or Katie are so
>> > mistreated.
>>
>> It provides a departure from the all your rants about how Carrie and I
>> are mistreating you.
>
> Screw you Katie. You're a goddamn nut and Internet sadist. Clearly you
> and Carrie hooked up because she was one too.
>
> What you and Carrie both dislike is dealing with the fact that people
> have an expectancy of honesty, integrity and transparency when dealing
> with A Course in Miracles and clearly 99.9% of the time across of
> formates and venues --this expectation is met.
>
> Yet your methods for criticizing the course as "cult" are clearly
> dishonest, unethical, secretive and manipulative. And clearly these
> are cult values and the way cults operate and the values cults teach.
>
> While there is no evidence at all that A Course in Miracles ever
> operates this way, unless its being mis-interpreted by cult minds for
> a cult agenda.
Reading what you write here is proof.
Reality Scan
news:fovd37$is4$1...@aioe.org...
> I would think there's an expectation of kindness, respect, not being
> lectured, accused of things, called names, insulted, put down, etc on a
> Course in Miracles group.
ROTFLMAO. Really? How so? When you've argued the opposite for years
when anyone questioned Katie Dean's right to post to this newsgroup.
Amazing how you give lip service to the expectation of civil behavior
when you don't even think alleged criminal behavior such as cyber
stalking should be "unexpected."
In fact you've argued consistently against any type of disclaimer for
an expectancy of civil, ethical or potentially criminal behavior.
Now all of a sudden, you re-write history and say, people should
expect, decent, behavior around here?
Your a liar, Carrie. What's more you are a completely disingenuous
liar. Which means you will lie about anything for any reason to serve
your purpose of the moment.
Do you even know the meaning of expectancy? I doubt it. And even if
you did you'd purposefully mis-use for your own benefit like you mis-
use the word "argue.
>
> But then people come on TRC-M and read what you write.
~Oh, geez. TRC-M is a flame board. Having occasional "course
discussions" hardly mitigates this fact. What are you saying now,
cupcake? That you expect civility from me on a flame board, when you
don't expect civility from yourself or anyone else?
One can "expect" civility on a flame board but can't possibly enforce
it --which is why the problem is systemic and intractable.
What I do know was that when I made every effort here to be civil in
the midst of rampant incivility and incivility to me, I was still
accused of bad behavior, because behavior around here is not
criticized by what you write but who you know.
Which of course, why you haven't said a word about what Clet or Ellen,
Lotus Gal or Katie Dean writes or even what you write, but are always
moralizing against the targets of your posse.
Do you ever get tired of the role of a moralizing Church Lady? Or does
complete hypocrisy fit you well?
Lotus_Bloom
>
> - Show quoted text -
You and Deborah are just flat out liars. Simple as that.
Reality Scan
Aw bullshit!
Reality Scan
> "Reality Scan" <QQJo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:648138e7-f484-43e4...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 1:50 pm, Katie <cosf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 13, 2:46 pm, Reality Scan <QQJo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Or turns a course discussion into a rant on how she or Katie are so
> >> > mistreated.
>
> >> It provides a departure from the all your rants about how Carrie and I
> >> are mistreating you.
>
> > Screw you Katie. You're a goddamn nut and Internet sadist. Clearly you
> > and Carrie hooked up because she was one too.
>
> > What you and Carrie both dislike is dealing with the fact that people
> > have an expectancy of honesty, integrity and transparency when dealing
> > with A Course in Miracles and clearly 99.9% of the time across of
> > formates and venues --this expectation is met.
>
> > Yet your methods for criticizing the course as "cult" are clearly
> > dishonest, unethical, secretive and manipulative. And clearly these
> > are cult values and the way cults operate and the values cults teach.
>
> > While there is no evidence at all that A Course in Miracles ever
> > operates this way, unless its being mis-interpreted by cult minds for
> > a cult agenda.
>
> Reading what you write here is proof.
Yeah, right Carrie. Let's talk about "proof," when its convenient for
you not to play your HYSIIHIIFY mind fuck game.
Make up your mind, cupcake. Is there a such thing as "proof," or is
every situation - HYSIIHIIFY ?????
I mean you would want to be talking out of both sides of your mouth
and leave no doubt you are playing mind fuck games.
Carrie
Expecting something doesn't mean we will have it that way.
Even though I still tend to expect something more from "Course Students"
then those who come here to question the course, and try to start.
Why are YOU any better, nicer, or adding anything more positive (or
course related) here than Katie? Yet you seem to feel you have a right to be
here and lash out and insult, call names, put down, and make stuff up, like
you see her (and me) doing.
>
sue...@aol.com
>
> You are a liar Deborah and your sneaky little jabs could use a dose of
> honesty, along with your brother John.
Wrong. Deborah is an intelligent woman making very astute and valid
observations from what is visible on this NG. Anyone you can't bully
really insenses you. To quote James 'you're still a very angry
woman'.
'Cletus' is not just some troll reading archives--that is next to
impossible. Not only does 'it' know this newsgroup, 'it' makes
insider innuendo about eots, iow 'eff you, Wayne', hoping Wayne is
hanging on 'it's' every word, of course.
'Cletus' is an amalgamation of the royal we, Deb--you, ellen, and
'teddy', regardless of who is typing the words. (teddy aka free-
something, and another bozo). Brit spellings to implicate James, your
bad Texas grammar and throwing around the royal we. So either you
know that and you are lying, or your smirk sister girlfriend and
silent partner teddy don't tell you everything. I don't know which.
You are both sneaky two-faced liars who never seem to realize that
gossip works both ways. Bragging how you've so moved on with your
lives while the newsgroup has become a daily Wayne, Wayne, Wayne.
Surely as the awakened beings that you are, you realize that life
moves on--you're not in charge. It's an entertaining read for a few
minutes every once in awhile.
Deborah is undoubtedly correct. It is a very stupid attempt to shut
John up about eots since it just incites him. What is not visible here
is that Ellen has run a relentless and ridiculous anti-Wayne smear
campaign since she left eots the last time, with her only converts
being you and Ted. Any former member of eots who keeps in touch at
all has been recruited for it--very old and boring story except for a
five minute humorous monologue on beating your heads against a wall.
Her list was never anything but a front for that--that and wannabe
teachering. How bizarre to think that former members of eots would
wannabe taught by either of you. Or to think that you will ever be
anything but brain-dead ex-culties mimicking Wayne on the NG--because
the shoe fits. You have no interest in ACIM other than mis-
representing it as non-duality from your patronizing self-proclaimed
awakened states.
Ellen has a bigger stake in shutting John up than just your childish
boys against the girls bully games. One of these days, someone she has
employed to do her dirty work for her camp switching is going to pop
up and spill the dirt. Pass the popcorn.
Seriously, if you want to find out how awakened you really are, go
play your king of the hill games on a veteran non-duality list such as
NonDualPhil. I doubt that either of you have the integrity to do
that, but on the off-chance I had to throw it out there.
and btw, you're correct Deborah...I've never posted under anything but
my real name and addy.
Hi James, was wondering when you'd show back up.
Carrie
HYSIIHIIFY
Katie
> On Feb 13, 1:50 pm, Katie <cosf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 13, 2:46 pm, Reality Scan <QQJo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Or turns a course discussion into a rant on how she or Katie are so
> > > mistreated.
>
> > It provides a departure from the all your rants about how Carrie and I
> > are mistreating you.
>
> Screw you Katie. You're a goddamn nut and Internet sadist. Clearly you
> and Carrie hooked up because she was one too.
Yes, and we are "sadists" why, John? Because we are "mistreating"
you?
You make my point for me, you sad creature!
>
> What you and Carrie both dislike is dealing with the fact that people
> have an expectancy of honesty, integrity and transparency when dealing
> with A Course in Miracles and clearly 99.9% of the time across of
> formates and venues --this expectation is met.
Where do you get your impressive statistics, John? Do you have a bevy
of adoring high school hotties doing research for you in between
servicing and worshipping you?
>
> Yet your methods for criticizing the course as "cult" are clearly
> dishonest, unethical, secretive and manipulative. And clearly these
> are cult values and the way cults operate and the values cults teach.
Yes, it's all very clear, especially the secretive stuff.
>
> While there is no evidence at all that A Course in Miracles ever
> operates this way, unless its being mis-interpreted by cult minds for
> a cult agenda.
No, you're correct, we clearly see how ACIM operates from you, since
you are the World's Ultimate Authority on how ACIM operates, and God
bless you for that too!
>
> What's amazing is how all you cult-rained minds rallying in various
> ways against the Course being honest and transparent, and associated
> with integrity, push all this shit talk, but couldn't yourselves stand
> the light of day, or the least bit of scrutiny for honesty, integrity
> or transparency.
Ok, when may I come down to your neck of the woods with a camera crew
to view you in the light of day? Just say the word, because I have a
bevy of adoring high school hotties who do my bidding too, and they
might really enjoy meeting your adoring high school hotties to compare
notes on the difference between a secretive silly deluded old cultie
manipulator and a SuperHero Studly Manly Man Defender of Jesus and All
His Messages. It's just that I like to keep that part of my scam low
key, so I don't mention my high school hotties too much, you know,
considering all the secrecy and all!
Just let me know! The world awaits your Wisdom, Johnny!! Make no
mistake about it.
Katie
>
> I don't know (or care) what Katie did in it.
Why not, aren't I a perfect and healed part of you, like everyone
else?
Pieter
"Reality Scan" <QQJ...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:972998a9-b004-46f7...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 13, 3:09 am, "Pieter" <hrdou...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>> John, I repeat what I said:
>> If ACIM is your book, why don't
>> you frequently read *the whole* of it ?
>> When reading it selectively, it is
>> impossible to grasp its meaning.
>> "This course will be believed entirely,
>> or not at all. For it is wholly true or
>> wholly false, and cannot be but
>> partially believed."
>
> Pieter, you can repeat all you want. If you are a course students with
> the standards you demand of me, then clearly you shouldn't be judging
> my behavior or entering the battlefield.
1. What do you think I demand of you?
2. What is my judgment of your behavior?
That it is pure ego? That is how you
correctly classified it yourself.
3. Why do you think I enter the battlefield?
I am just speaking to you; are you the
personification of the battlefield?
For me you are a Son of God (as
everyone else is). Only for the ego
there is a battlefield at all.
> On the other hand if you wish to make a comment or argument, then
> address the argument you presented.
The importance of our brothers for
our own salvation is often mentioned
in the course; here is one example:
"1529. . . . If your brothers ARE part of you, will you
ACCEPT them? Only they can teach you what you are,
and your learning is the result of what you taught THEM.
What you call upon in them, you call upon in YOURSELF.
And as you call upon it IN THEM, it becomes real to YOU."
This works in both directions, depending
on who's voice we listen to: the voice of
the ego, or of the Holy Spirit.
Carrie
<sue...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4acd2093-b14d-46de...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I think teddy used the name "happyslave" (not to be confused with
"happydreamin")
Seems like you needed to vent, hope you feel better.
Katie
Whew!! There's nothing like the wake left by a shakeup down at the Old
Cult Corral!
Seems to me after all of that, that all of Elllen's recent posturings
are geared toward muddying the waters in anticipation of some kind of
very scandalous revelations about her time as an EOTS Cultie. It also
seems as though Wayne and the remaining Culties ain't too keen on the
possibility of Ellen spilling her guts either.
There's always some kind of major drama going on around all
destructive Cults, so all of this is just business as usual. It is
always a public service when someone is honest enough to tell the
story objectively, but honesty, objectivity, and responsibility are
rare commodities in destructive cult circles. It's a shame, because I
know from personal experience that a lot of damage is undone when
someone is brave and generous enough to turn on the lights in one of
these dank little rat holes that are passing themselves off as
"healing circles" or "temples of illumination", or whatever.
From what I can tell, Wayne really did a number on all of you. It's a
shame that no one seems very interested in sparing anyone else the
same "pleasure" he gave them. It's kind of hysterical that SuperHero
Johnny Boy's efforts would cause any angst, but very revealing.
Someone should speak up, it's the right thing to do.
The only thing I can add to the mix is that Ellen sent me an e-mail
awhile back out of the blue, to inform me that she'd left EOTS. She
just said that she decided to leave, no explanation, of course.
After that we shared a few e-mails back and forth until I realized
that Ellen has been cult jumping her entire life, and has no interest
whatsoever in sparing herself the next soul rape. It doesn't seem
that there is much of Ellen left, if you get right down to it.
How sad that monster mindfuckers like Wayne Austin never really get
busted all the way down to the ground like they deserve to be. No
matter how many relationships and lives they destroy, there is still
always a queue waiting to volunteer for the big soul fuck. That's
because none of the previous victims have the integrity to spill their
guts. Instead they go off into the next Cirque du Soulless, or worse
yet, try to get one of their own going, as Ellen is clearly attempting
now.
Shame on all of you, you're not worth the oxygen you steal from those
of us who provide if for you while you fritter your God given
resources away trying to prove how Special and Important you are to a
handful of nutters who might give you a glance throughout the years.
Shame, shame, shame, on the EOTS branch of the Cult, the TRCM Branch,
and whatever the name of the branch it is that Ellen is trying to get
going. All you ever accomplish is HARM.
One
<miracl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Feb 12, 10:26 pm, Deborah <debo...@not.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:28:42 -0800 (PST), Reality Scan
>>
>> <QQJo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> John, you choose an ego point of view,
>> >> and then you are amazed that you
>> >> literally experience a world of attack?
>>
>> >Oh, geez --stuff your phony moralizing. You think like a freakn'
>> >postal clerk with a niche for everything.
>>
>> >The issue is ethical behavior associated with the name chosen --A
>> >Course in Miracles.
>>
>> Do you think your behavior here is ethical, John? Pieter implores
>> you, as does the course, to rise above the battlefield and you respond
>> by going at him like he's a punching bag. Why not go to a gym and
>> take your angst out there?
>>
>> Deborah (BC)
>
>"Pieter implores you, as does the course, to rise above the
>battlefield"
>
>I believe Pieter and the Course implores all of us.
Is Pieter the newsgroup Implorer?
Lotus_Bloom
What is it with you and resentments??? Try a meeting Sue, they have
steps to help you with that. Sincerely, how many years has it been
that you keep wagging around all this junk? It can't be good for you
to keep living in this hell. No I am not angry, sorry to disappoint
you. Do you seriously believe this stuff you post?
One
wrote:
>
>"Deborah" <deb...@not.com> wrote in message
>news:ur65r3l3kbf7fd2f3...@4ax.com...
>>
>> You're part of the "we" that Cletus denies he's part of, aren't you?
>> Bunch of interlopers along with Ellen and Debra whose only ongoing
>> interest in being here is shutting John up about eots. Bah.
>>
>> I don't like the way John behaves, but I don't think you (that's the
>> "royal you") have the slghtest business being here. You have no
>> interest in discussing ACIM.
>>
>> Deborah (BC)
>
>You are a liar Deborah and your sneaky little jabs could use a dose of
>honesty, along with your brother John. *smirk*
>
Pieter
My answer to this post:
> The thesis statement of the argument you are avoiding is: "People have
> an expectation of honesty, integrity and transparency when dealing
> with A Course in Miracles."
Dealing with ACIM is not the same
as dealing with people who happen
to post here.
Imo it is quite easy to recognize who
are serious discussion partners, and
who are not. So one can discuss with
the former category, and ignore the latter.
What would be the problem with this?
Katie
> On Feb 13, 4:13 pm, sue...@aol.com wrote:
> Do you seriously believe this stuff you post?
You sound scared to me, Robo Deb! What are you afraid that Sue will
reveal?
It's probably nothing more than that you actually do have emotions
besides "bliss", but you have so much invested in your fake, plastic
identities that it feels as though your entire world will shatter if
the facts about your childish posings were to be revealed, even though
everyone knows that you're just a plastic, fake, childish poser to
begin with.
Reminds me of when Carrie got hysterical when someone she'd been
trying to "heal" caught onto her act and busted her on Carrie's own
website, and tried to shut down the internet.
You'd be amazed at how much less complicated and stressful that
"horrid and terrifying" place called "Actuality" actually is than your
tweaked out little Cult World, you poor sad deluded cow. You can't
even control your fantasy world, let alone yourself. Grow the fuck up!
Reality Scan
~Oh, what you mean then is you are playing another mind fuck game when
you talk about "proof"
Yeah, figures.
Reality Scan
>
> > What you and Carrie both dislike is dealing with the fact that people
> > have an expectancy of honesty, integrity and transparency when dealing
> > with A Course in Miracles and clearly 99.9% of the time across of
> > formates and venues --this expectation is met.
>
> Where do you get your impressive statistics, John? Do you have a bevy
> of adoring high school hotties doing research for you in between
> servicing and worshipping you?
Jampolsky's work is an example of the honesty, integrity and
transparency expected by people dealing with A Course in Miracle. And
the American Medical Association thought so.
I guess you think your Nicomoon-Julia Child-metaphysical cooking, one
step past Lazarus, traveling nut case circus has a better take than
the AMA.
ellie
How would you know what the list is about Sue?
> Ellen has a bigger stake in shutting John up than just your childish
> boys against the girls bully games. One of these days, someone she has
> employed to do her dirty work for her camp switching is going to pop
> up and spill the dirt. Pass the popcorn.
Why don't you spill it Sue? I'd love to here it.
> Seriously, if you want to find out how awakened you really are, go
> play your king of the hill games on a veteran non-duality list such as
> NonDualPhil. I doubt that either of you have the integrity to do
> that, but on the off-chance I had to throw it out there.
>
> and btw, you're correct Deborah...I've never posted under anything but
> my real name and addy.
>
> Hi James, was wondering when you'd show back up.
Waiting for this dirt.
sue...@aol.com
> What is it with you and resentments??? Try a meeting Sue, they have
> steps to help you with that. Sincerely, how many years has it been
> that you keep wagging around all this junk? It can't be good for you
> to keep living in this hell. No I am not angry, sorry to disappoint
> you. Do you seriously believe this stuff you post?
Why would I deprive you, the poster girl for the dry
'drunk' (substitute everything else you are using or not using), of
your cherished fantasies of me writhing in hell on N Wightman after
all these years? while your girlfriend has a couple of days off and
keeps posting as Cletus. The question remains are you so dense you
don't realize it or are you lying? smirk
Lotus_Bloom
<sue...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8a2c47c1-dd8a-41a0...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Oh so you think Ellie is Cletus? LOL I haven't seen Cletus post one thing
that hasn't been said on this NG. Doesn't sound like Ellie to me. So you
wanna tell me what your problem is or you just want to throw some nasty
around?
Reality Scan
> "Reality Scan" <QQJo...@gmail.com> schreef in berichtnews:82e9ce05-c997-43fd...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> My answer to this post:
>
> > The thesis statement of the argument you are avoiding is: "People have
> > an expectation of honesty, integrity and transparency when dealing
> > with A Course in Miracles."
>
> Dealing with ACIM is not the same
> as dealing with people who happen
> to post here.
> Imo it is quite easy to recognize who
> are serious discussion partners, and
> who are not.
Really? How is it "easy," when if you were honest you have to say this
guy is a serious course student, but watch out for that person she
might cyberstalk and harass you on the phone late a night.? And watch
out for this one, he will curse you for studying the course. And watch
out for these people they are recruiting for a totalitarian cult.
In fact, in order to protect yourself and your family while having a
serious course discussion around here, post under a handle and reveal
little about yourself. (Like you do!)
Considering the obvious fact, that these unpleasant and even dangerous
conditions are invited and allowed, moreover cannot be controlled, how
can you say this newsgroup meets the most basic, normal expectations
for people dealing with A Course in Miracles?
Clearly when you separate serious course discussion partners from
people who could potentially harm you or your family, you have already
conceded that are dealing with the dishonest, unethical, secretive and
manipulative.
Just because it possible to have a picnic in a minefield, doesn't mean
you should picnic in a minefield, or that it makes any sense at all to
picnic in a minefield, unless the suspense and drama of someone being
blown up is more important than the picnic.
Carrie
You think that's ellen? You think she's computer smart enough to set up an
anonymous internet account, or she'd bother doing it?
Interesting, though.
Sort of like a TV show called "Group Therapy".
You guys from eots seem to have issues to work out with each other.
Which is odd in a way, because wasn't (isn't) the eots group all about love,
trust, openness, oneness of all- at least in the group, etc?
Doesn't seem to last, or be so loving outside the group.
sue...@aol.com
> How would you know what the list is about Sue?
How would I know? Well, to start with, just for a little newsgroup
titillation, you approached ej to join your list and recommend other
former eots members, to which he recommended me, to which you objected
because I was 'pro-Wayne', to which he informed you if being anti-
Wayne was a condition of your list, he wasn't interested either.
Do you really think that the people who were and the fewer who still
are on your list don't keep in touch with me or repeat what you say?
So there you go, go knee-jerk unsub anyone you suspect of keeping in
touch with me. That would leave you and Deb and Ted.
Keep playing your castrating games, but leave Gangaji out of it, if
you want to continue wafting around her public meetings. I saved a
few of your choice tube steak epithets to John amidst misrepresenting
her teachings which the foundation will surely not appreciate.
:)))))))))))))
One
wrote:
>
><sue...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:8a2c47c1-dd8a-41a0...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 13, 2:54 pm, Lotus_Bloom <dwal...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What is it with you and resentments??? Try a meeting Sue, they have
>>> steps to help you with that. Sincerely, how many years has it been
>>> that you keep wagging around all this junk? It can't be good for you
>>> to keep living in this hell. No I am not angry, sorry to disappoint
>>> you. Do you seriously believe this stuff you post?
>>
>> Why would I deprive you, the poster girl for the dry
>> 'drunk' (substitute everything else you are using or not using), of
>> your cherished fantasies of me writhing in hell on N Wightman after
>> all these years? while your girlfriend has a couple of days off and
>> keeps posting as Cletus. The question remains are you so dense you
>> don't realize it or are you lying? smirk
>
>Oh so you think Ellie is Cletus? *smirk* I haven't seen Cletus post one thing
>that hasn't been said on this NG. Doesn't sound like Ellie to me. So you
>wanna tell me what your problem is or you just want to throw some nasty
>around? *smirk*
>
One
wrote:
> Doesn't seem to last, or be so loving outside the group. (wannabe) *smirk*
One
>How would you know what the list is about Sue? *smirk*
>
>
>> Ellen has a bigger stake in shutting John up than just your childish
>> boys against the girls bully games. One of these days, someone she has
>> employed to do her dirty work for her camp switching is going to pop
>> up and spill the dirt. Pass the popcorn.
>
>Why don't you spill it Sue? I'd love to here it. *smirk*
>
>> Seriously, if you want to find out how awakened you really are, go
>> play your king of the hill games on a veteran non-duality list such as
>> NonDualPhil. I doubt that either of you have the integrity to do
>> that, but on the off-chance I had to throw it out there.
>>
>> and btw, you're correct Deborah...I've never posted under anything but
>> my real name and addy.
>>
>> Hi James, was wondering when you'd show back up.
>
>Waiting for this dirt. *smirk*
ellie
> On Feb 13, 4:47 pm, ellie <miraclelur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > How would you know what the list is about Sue?
>
> How would I know? Well, to start with, just for a little newsgroup
> titillation, you approached ej to join your list and recommend other
> former eots members, to which he recommended me, to which you objected
> because I was 'pro-Wayne', to which he informed you if being anti-
> Wayne was a condition of your list, he wasn't interested either.
Ej must have misunderstood me. Let me clarify. I would not have you
on the list because you are not trsutworthy. And you are almost
always just plain mean.
> Do you really think that the people who were and the fewer who still
> are on your list don't keep in touch with me or repeat what you say?
> So there you go, go knee-jerk unsub anyone you suspect of keeping in
> touch with me. That would leave you and Deb and Ted.
Spill it Sue. Btw I'll be sure to let those that are on the list see
this post so they will know how well you also keep their trust.
> Keep playing your castrating games, but leave Gangaji out of it, if
> you want to continue wafting around her public meetings. I saved a
> few of your choice tube steak epithets to John amidst misrepresenting
> her teachings which the foundation will surely not appreciate.
>
> :)))))))))))))
Go for it Sue. Be my guest.
Carrie
You make me for sure glad I instinctively backed off from joining
eots a few years ago, when I got the "questionaire" and requirements
to join, from Wayne. I knew in my being NO WAY that this wasn't
something good, in spite of all the talk about love, trust and open/
honestly in the group.
It sure can turn nasty fast.
If someone doesn't want to be in eots, and if they want a group about
NOT being in eots, so what?
Do you have to track them down and stomp on them over it?
It's like when Robin./Bodhi left Endeavor and some from there wrote
bad about him here. Even though he had been their "brother" for a long
time.
I know a couple who left the Mormon church after 35 years, and all
their long-time friends dropped and shunned them and some wrote nasty
letters to them.
Love with conditions.
Reality Scan
***That's not what Sue said. She said "Cletus" was an amalgamation of
you, Ellen and Teddy, and another bozo.
Sue wrote:
'Cletus' is not just some troll reading archives--that is next to
impossible. Not only does 'it' know this newsgroup, 'it' makes
insider innuendo about eots, iow 'eff you, Wayne', hoping Wayne is
hanging on 'it's' every word, of course.
"'Cletus' is an amalgamation of the royal we, Deb--you, ellen, and
'teddy', regardless of who is typing the words. (teddy aka free-
something, and another bozo). Brit spellings to implicate James, your
bad Texas grammar and throwing around the royal we."
***Amazing revelation --how you and Ellen have been running a
relentless ant-Wayne smear campaign since leaving Eots and certainly
not telling any here your true sentiments.
My, my ---it seems you gals have been deceitful and mis-represent
yourselves! It clear now you came here, hooked up with Carrie and
started your Eots promotion knowing it would provoke a negative
reaction against Wayne and Eots! Very, very clever.
Then things got out of hand and turned against you when you tried to
shut up Bill, and reveled the Nazi control freak that you are.
Then you're little ant-Wayne smear group decided to conjure up an
untraceable troll, pretending to be a Eots clone if not Wayne, himself
--but with just enough innuendos and inside info, that only a Eoter
would know its not Wayne.
So what Sue's telling us is you and Ellen are playing Wayne and
playing me, because you and Ellen are two unscrupulous Nazi assholes.
Not so?
Then why have you and Ellen been mis-representing yourselves?
Reality Scan
> <sue...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8a2c47c1-dd8a-41a0...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Feb 13, 2:54 pm, Lotus_Bloom <dwal...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >> What is it with you and resentments??? Try a meeting Sue, they have
> >> steps to help you with that. Sincerely, how many years has it been
> >> that you keep wagging around all this junk? It can't be good for you
> >> to keep living in this hell. No I am not angry, sorry to disappoint
> >> you. Do you seriously believe this stuff you post?
>
> > Why would I deprive you, the poster girl for the dry
> > 'drunk' (substitute everything else you are using or not using), of
> > your cherished fantasies of me writhing in hell on N Wightman after
> > all these years? while your girlfriend has a couple of days off and
> > keeps posting as Cletus. The question remains are you so dense you
> > don't realize it or are you lying? smirk
>
> You think that's ellen?
***That's not what Sue said. She said "Cletus" was an amalgamation of
Debs, Ellen and Teddy, and another bozo.
Lotus_Bloom
"Reality Scan" <QQJ...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:31155af4-7c37-4781...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 13, 7:12 pm, "Lotus_Bloom" <dwal...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>> <sue...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:8a2c47c1-dd8a-41a0...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Feb 13, 2:54 pm, Lotus_Bloom <dwal...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> What is it with you and resentments??? Try a meeting Sue, they have
>> >> steps to help you with that. Sincerely, how many years has it been
>> >> that you keep wagging around all this junk? It can't be good for you
>> >> to keep living in this hell. No I am not angry, sorry to disappoint
>> >> you. Do you seriously believe this stuff you post?
>>
>> > Why would I deprive you, the poster girl for the dry
>> > 'drunk' (substitute everything else you are using or not using), of
>> > your cherished fantasies of me writhing in hell on N Wightman after
>> > all these years? while your girlfriend has a couple of days off and
>> > keeps posting as Cletus. The question remains are you so dense you
>> > don't realize it or are you lying? smirk
>>
>> Oh so you think Ellie is Cletus? LOL I haven't seen Cletus post one
>> thing
>> that hasn't been said on this NG. Doesn't sound like Ellie to me. So
>> you
>> wanna tell me what your problem is or you just want to throw some nasty
>> around?
>
> ***That's not what Sue said. She said "Cletus" was an amalgamation of
> you, Ellen and Teddy, and another bozo.
>
>off your butt huh.
Lotus_Bloom
"Carrie" <starch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:580b62a0-a98c-4ec5...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Love with conditions.
You ain't seen nothing yet, she can be quite vile.
Carrie.is.a...@gmail.com
> On Feb 13, 8:09 am, "Carrie" <starch...@kingcon.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Deborah" <debo...@not.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:ur65r3l3kbf7fd2f3...@4ax.com...
>
> > > On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:16:53 -0800 (PST),
> > > Carrie.is.always.ri...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >>On Feb 12, 4:28 pm, Reality Scan <QQJo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Feb 12, 4:15 pm, "Pieter" <hrdou...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>
> > >>> > John, you choose an ego point of view,
> > >>> > and then you are amazed that you
> > >>> > literally experience a world of attack?
>
> > >>> Oh, geez --stuff your phony moralizing. You think like a freakn'
> > >>> postal clerk with a niche for everything.
>
> > >>> The issue is ethical behavior associated with the name chosen --A
> > >>> Course in Miracles.
>
> > >>> with ACIM per this newsgroup is religious baiting, criminal
> > >>> cyberstalking, and a whole history of nasty, cult mind fucking.
>
> > >>> Now you dumb bastard, if you had a half of a brain or any education at
> > >>> all you'd be concerned with both the integrity and appearance of
> > >>> integrity of A Course in Miracles. Why? Because it it ain't your's --A
> > >>> Course in Miracles belongs to the world.
>
> > >>> The Catholic Church is being destroyed economically and spiritually by
> > >>> the pedophile scandle. Why? Because reckless, self-centered bastards
> > >>> with God on their lips and not an ounce of personal integrity molested
> > >>> kids.
>
> > >>> And yeah --they had an out and an excuse too. God forgives them --
> > >>> after all they are priests. Hell, they can forgive each other. Makes
> > >>> sense you dim wit? Yeah, it makes so much sense its effectively
> > >>> destroying a 2000 year old institution.
>
> > >>> And what would you do? Look in your little niche and pull out a
> > >>> morality speech for the molested kids:
>
> > >>> Oh, you choose a ego point of view, then are amazed you see a world of
> > >>> attack."
>
> > >>> People have an expectation of honesty, integrity and transparency
> > >>> you to offer every excuse imaginable why it doesn't matter whether
> > >>> Course study is dishonest, unethical, secretive and manipulative. Why?
> > >>> Again --it ain't yours.
>
> > >>> That's why educated, professional people like Wapnick, Schutch,
> > >>> Williamson, Jampolsky, etc, who UNDERSTAND trust is built on
> > >>> integrity, are the public face of A Course in Miracles, and you are
> > >>> not. And you can bet your ass, they have read the Course as much or
> > >>> more than you have and most likely understand it better, and you can
> > >>> bet they do not want religious baiting, cyberstalking and nasty cults
> > >>> associated with A Course in Miracles.
>
> > >>> Which means they don't read in a nihilism which the Course doesn't
> > >>> contain and doesn't condone, and you are way to dumb to understand.
> > >>_______________________________________________
>
> > >>So there you have it.
> > >>If it wasn't obvious before it should be by now that John is suffering
> > >>from extreme physiological problems.
> > >>We should all hold him in our prayers in his hours of darkness.
>
> > >>Peace to you John.
>
> > >>Also those who have recently supported John's anti-course behavior
> > >>should also think about getting some physcological testing done, in
> > >>hopes of someday creating a better world for yourself.
> > >>___________________________
>
> > > You're part of the "we" that Cletus denies he's part of, aren't you?
> > > Bunch of interlopers along with Ellen and Debra whose only ongoing
> > > interest in being here is shutting John up about eots. Bah.
>
> > > I don't like the way John behaves, but I don't think you (that's the
> > > interest in discussing ACIM.
>
> > > Deborah (BC)
>
> > When was the last time you discussed ACIM?
>
> When have you? The last time we saw your demonstration of
> "discussion," you were attempting to argue that you don't argue while
> you were arguing.
>
>
>
> > Write something, and I'll join you in it. Probably ellen, Debra, Cletus and
> > "Carrie is always right" will join you, too.
>
> My, my --now that's a motley Crew of Nazi cult assholes, anonymous
> trolls and yourself.
>
> And not a one of them has any allegiance for A Course in Miracles
> except as one of thousands of "paths."
>
> I guess the relativity of course teachings in the sub text of the
> dishonest, unethical, secretive and manipulative is a the basis for
> course discussion. Especially when "course discussion" is code for
> "mind fuck games."
Ciar:
So this is where all of your course studies have lead you John.
sad.
You could always choose again?
One
wrote:
>>off your butt huh. *smirk*
>
sue...@aol.com
> >Oh so you think Ellie is Cletus? *smirk* I haven't seen Cletus post one thing
> >that hasn't been said on this NG. Doesn't sound like Ellie to me. So you
> >wanna tell me what your problem is or you just want to throw some nasty
> >around? *smirk*
Well, you could be right, Mike, ya never know, but it's kinda like who
did what to who in the library with a led pipe. It's a process of
elimination and why would some dude named Cletus bother? You haven't
been treated to hours on end of what 'ellie' Really says on her cell
phone and unfortunately for me in 3-D til I gave up being the nice guy
to her 'social' invitations, because you know she can't type and you
might save it and publish it years later--one of her stocks in trade.
Ironically, when Deb was still in the 'cult' she and her housemate got
their rocks off on scapegoating 'ellie'. So it's pretty much a joke
for me to watch the shifting alliances. Call Katie a wingnut, she's
got the behaviour right. Can you honestly say some guy named Cletus
would study the archives and come up with Wayne knock off platitudes?
*smirk*
One
<miracl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Feb 13, 5:44 pm, sue...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Feb 13, 4:47 pm, ellie <miraclelur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > How would you know what the list is about Sue?
>>
>> How would I know? Well, to start with, just for a little newsgroup
>> titillation, you approached ej to join your list and recommend other
>> former eots members, to which he recommended me, to which you objected
>> because I was 'pro-Wayne', to which he informed you if being anti-
>> Wayne was a condition of your list, he wasn't interested either.
>
>Ej must have misunderstood me. Let me clarify. I would not have you
>on the list because you are not trsutworthy. And you are almost
>always just plain mean. *smirk*
>
>> Do you really think that the people who were and the fewer who still
>> are on your list don't keep in touch with me or repeat what you say?
>> So there you go, go knee-jerk unsub anyone you suspect of keeping in
>> touch with me. That would leave you and Deb and Ted.
>
>Spill it Sue. Btw I'll be sure to let those that are on the list see
>this post so they will know how well you also keep their trust. *smirk*
>
>> Keep playing your castrating games, but leave Gangaji out of it, if
>> you want to continue wafting around her public meetings. I saved a
>> few of your choice tube steak epithets to John amidst misrepresenting
>> her teachings which the foundation will surely not appreciate.
>>
>> :)))))))))))))
>
>Go for it Sue. Be my guest. *smirk*
One
wrote:
>You ain't seen nothing yet, she can be quite vile. *smirk*
>
Reality Scan
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:12:27 -0600, "Lotus_Bloom" <dwal...@tx.rr.com>
~Yeah, you dumb Nazi sleeze --it just a coincidence that both you and
"Clet," share the same slime ball proclivity to recklessly, malicious
make the charge of pedophilia.
Yeah, I can see what Sue is saying. Clet is an amalgamation and tool
of you, Ellen and Teddy boy.
If you and Ellen are waging a hate campaign against Wayne and Eots its
highly unlikely anyone from Eots would come to your defense.
So "Clet" has to be one of your crew or an amalgamation of you, Ellen
and Teddy Boy.
My, my --you and Ellen have been very busy deceitful, shit stirring
control freaks. You're running a smear campaign against Wayne and
Eots, a disruption campaign of this newsgroup, and running a nasty
freakn troll to smear your critics and stop discussion you don't like.
You gals are definitely a piece of work!
.
Carrie.is.a...@gmail.com
> On Feb 13, 1:50 pm, Katie <cosf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 13, 2:46 pm, Reality Scan <QQJo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Or turns a course discussion into a rant on how she or Katie are so
> > > mistreated.
>
> > It provides a departure from the all your rants about how Carrie and I
> > are mistreating you.
>
> Screw you Katie. You're a goddamn nut and Internet sadist. Clearly you
> and Carrie hooked up because she was one too.
>
> have an expectancy of honesty, integrity and transparency when dealing
> with A Course in Miracles and clearly 99.9% of the time across of
> formates and venues --this expectation is met.
>
> dishonest, unethical, secretive and manipulative. And clearly these
> are cult values and the way cults operate and the values cults teach.
>
> While there is no evidence at all that A Course in Miracles ever
> operates this way, unless its being mis-interpreted by cult minds for
> a cult agenda.
>
> ways against the Course being honest and transparent, and associated
> with integrity, push all this shit talk, but couldn't yourselves stand
> the light of day, or the least bit of scrutiny for honesty, integrity
> or transparency.
Ciar:
Thank you for acting out this retardedness John, so we can see how
ridicules the ego can be.
Let this be a lesson to all of us course students, as to were the ego
can lead if left unchecked.
Stay with your Course studies ~ it can help to avoid this type of ugly
mess.
Carrie.is.a...@gmail.com
> On Feb 13, 12:26 am, Deborah <debo...@not.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:28:42 -0800 (PST), Reality Scan
>
> > <QQJo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> John, you choose an ego point of view,
> > >> and then you are amazed that you
> > >> literally experience a world of attack?
>
> > >Oh, geez --stuff your phony moralizing. You think like a freakn'
> > >postal clerk with a niche for everything.
>
> > >The issue is ethical behavior associated with the name chosen --A
> > >Course in Miracles.
>
>
> ~My, my, Deborah. Such poor thinking skills for a law school grad.
> You can't get past an ad homenin argument even when the reasons its a
> logical fallacy was explained to you in detail.
>
> The thesis statement of the argument you are avoiding is: "People have
> with A Course in Miracles."
>
> Do you agree with this? Of course you do. Its a self-evident statement
> unless one has some sub rosa agenda for A Course in Miracles. Who here
> or anywhere wouldn't agree? I mean at least in principle and given lip
> service. If any one disagrees, step up and give an argument why people
> shouldn't have an expectancy of honesty, integrity and transparency
> when dealing with A Course in Miracles.
>
> Now we should agree to this statement in principle --and you, Pieter,
> Carrie, Ellen should agree ---yet I'm being told in effect that when I
> logged on to TRCM for course discussion, I should not have had any
> expectations of honesty, integrity or transparency when dealing with A
> Course in Miracles on TRCM. Moreover, and clearly this is what in
> effect is being told to any person logging on to this newsgroup.
>
> So who is being inconsistent here? Me or the proponents of Flame board
> discussion of A Course in Miracles? There is no doubt to the answer,
> at least in the larger world apart from a handful of people who agree
> with this inconsistency.
>
> Moreover and clearly what can be more obvious than this inconsistency
> speaks for, or it least tolerates and condones expectations of course
> study as dishonest, unethical, secretive and manipulative.
>
> I blasted Pieter because he holds this inconsistency and wishes to use
> course quotes and course concepts against the notion that people
> should expect honesty, integrity and transparency when dealing with
> Course study. Which isn't hard to do when freedom is mistaken for
> nihilism which the Course doesn't contain and doesn't condone.
>
> Moreover there is a difference between being ethical and civil. I
> consider my behavior ethical though not always civil. Moreover,
> purposefully ambiguous expectations of newsgroup behavior has always
> been used to squash criticism of this newsgroup and cloud the
> expectancy of honesty, integrity and transparency for Course study and
> discussion.
>
> So --my, my. What do we have here? The gathering hordes of the
> irrational pushing by nearly every dirty, unethical means, that I'm
> wrong, I'm nuts, I'm inconsistent, when it seems to me and clearly,
> that I'm nearly the only one here who takes the time to structure a
> rational argument --or even addresses a rational argument.
Jee-wee I wonder what the Course says all about all this?
Carrie
"Reality Scan" <QQJ...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:31155af4-7c37-4781...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Wow you found another anti-something smear group. And of course I must be
involved in it (even though I refused to join eots when it was being
promoted here)
You must be psyched!
>
>
Reality Scan
> You make me for sure glad I instinctively backed off from joining
> eots a few years ago, when I got the "questionaire" and requirements
> to join, from Wayne. I knew in my being NO WAY that this wasn't
> something good, in spite of all the talk about love, trust and open/
> honestly in the group.
ROTFLMAO. That's not what you were saying a few days ago. Funny how
you can change your opinions on a dime depending on what your
propoganda of the moment demands.
Carrie wrote to "Clet"
"Eots never really had much, if anything to do with this ng.
Occasionally some from there posted here (in a friendly way) and were
treated like an invading enemy looking for war. This has been
distorted and changed into
something else, over time (by those who want to see it that way and
justify the continal war/attack it's used for)
It was and is a one sided war.
The people here who used to be in the eots group (it's actually a
yahoo egroup I think) no longer are. And most of what they are asked
or accused of is either long over and done, or nobody else's business
(here) "
So you were lying in this post, Carrie.
You KNEW in your own being Eots wasn't anything good. But represented
them in this post as friendly and misunderstood and unfairly attacked.
When you knew when you wrote this that Eots posting and posters have
had a long history on TRCM, Eot's posting was rarely friendly but
nearly always aggressive, attacking and obscene, and only a partisan
hack and liar with an agenda would describe it as a "one sided war."
Oh wow. And now you knew in your being, NO WAY this was something
good.
Caught red handed in one of your switchroo lies!
One
You're posting your comments to the wrong person, Sue. lol All I did
was contribute the *smirks* to what ol' lotus bulb had to say. She's
the one protesting that ellen isnt cleato. The bulb wrote the
following that you replied to...
"Oh so you think Ellie is Cletus? *smirk* I haven't seen Cletus post
one thing that hasn't been said on this NG. Doesn't sound like Ellie
to me. So you wanna tell me what your problem is or you just want to
throw some nasty around? *smirk*"
I just added the smirks. I think they dress up her words very nicely,
dont you? lol
One
wrote:
> You must be psyched! (wannabe) *smirk*
>
>>
>>
>
sue...@aol.com
totally. I wasn't material for your list because I am totally
untrustworthy to keep your secrets. You got that right. Like Kaye
(Wayne's wife for the titillation of the NG) was jealous of you, and
Wayne isn't awake, he's coming from his ego, oh and the great Debbers
one. Wayne unsubbed her because she finally had him by the balls.
Just a few of your choicest hallucinations. So post away on your list,
I'm so scared!
Lotus_Bloom
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL - trying to turn the heat away from you John? Everything I've
seen Cletus post has been about your behavior.
Reality Scan
> On Feb 13, 5:44 pm, sue...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > On Feb 13, 4:47 pm, ellie <miraclelur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > How would you know what the list is about Sue?
>
> > How would I know? Well, to start with, just for a little newsgroup
> > titillation, you approached ej to join your list and recommend other
> > former eots members, to which he recommended me, to which you objected
> > because I was 'pro-Wayne', to which he informed you if being anti-
> > Wayne was a condition of your list, he wasn't interested either.
>
> Ej must have misunderstood me. Let me clarify. I would not have you
> on the list because you are not trsutworthy. And you are almost
> always just plain mean.
Trustworthy? Sue sounds trustworthy to me.
After all, how trustworthy are you if you and Debs are running an anti-
Wayne smear campaign, off group, while telling no one around here
while giving the impression that you are pro-Wayne and pro-Eots?
You were saying one thing here, and another thing off group.
Its call deceit. And that makes you untrustworthy
ellie
> no Ellen, EJ didn't misunderstand you at all, he had your number
> totally. I wasn't material for your list because I am totally
> untrustworthy to keep your secrets. You got that right. Like Kaye
> (Wayne's wife for the titillation of the NG) was jealous of you, and
> Wayne isn't awake, he's coming from his ego, oh and the great Debbers
> one. Wayne unsubbed her because she finally had him by the balls.
> Just a few of your choicest hallucinations. So post away on your list,
> I'm so scared!
Gossip, gossip, gossip. See ya!
ellie
> On Feb 13, 7:59 pm, ellie <miraclelur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 13, 5:44 pm, sue...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 13, 4:47 pm, ellie <miraclelur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > How would you know what the list is about Sue?
>
> > > How would I know? Well, to start with, just for a little newsgroup
> > > titillation, you approached ej to join your list and recommend other
> > > former eots members, to which he recommended me, to which you objected
> > > because I was 'pro-Wayne', to which he informed you if being anti-
> > > Wayne was a condition of your list, he wasn't interested either.
>
> > Ej must have misunderstood me. Let me clarify. I would not have you
> > on the list because you are not trsutworthy. And you are almost
> > always just plain mean.
>
> Trustworthy? Sue sounds trustworthy to me.
Okay, trust her then.
> After all, how trustworthy are you if you and Debs are running an anti-
> Wayne smear campaign, off group, while telling no one around here
> while giving the impression that you are pro-Wayne and pro-Eots?
>
> You were saying one thing here, and another thing off group.
>
> Its call deceit. And that makes you untrustworthy
No it's called a suebrd story.
Reality Scan
> "Reality Scan" <QQJo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Really? Not hard to figure out at all if you and Ellen are running a
smear campaign against Wayne.
Because "Cletus,"can't be Wayne and isn't anyone from Eots --so
"Cletus" has to be associated with you and Ellen, if not an
amalgamation of you, Ellen and Teddy Boy.
Go fuck yourself, Debs. You are one evil SOB.