John's gig is up
Lee
>
> ....
> ~~~Thanks, Jeanette. My position should be clear enough.
>
> ~~BTW, How is TRCM generally regarded at TGP? From my posting there a
> few weeks ago, TRCM seems to be a general embarrasment to the larger
> course community.
>
> I mean I was repeatly ask why I choose to post on a
> newsgroup where people fight all the time,
LOL You're joking, right?
> and call all this ego mess, A Course in Miracles.
YOU are the face of TRCM dysfunction and savage abuse, John.
You've worked daily, for over four years, for that title.
Only in your topsy-turvy fantasies are you the champion
of anything but grabbing Katie's empty crown as dirtiest,
most menacing egomaniac in the room.
You don't have a CLUE how to interact civilly with other
self-respecting adults, mr blowhard. You have become
another peculiar beast of the internet, who *preys* on
open newsgroups to dump your hostility daily in ways
that moderated groups or 3d life would quickly reject.
Your 'colorful' arrogance, ad hom excuse for intelligent
debate and insults for any occasion wouldn't last six
weeks, on a moderated list.
The slick difference with you is that you CLAIM that the
abuse and unethical tactics which *you* most personify
today.. are what you are here to "clean up!" LOL ;)))
It was a very good con while it lasted, John.
You simply ran into a problem, once you began harassing
people whose only 'crime' was calling attention to your
increasingly surly and unethical excesses. IOW, once the
other "trolls" got bored and left, you clearly became our
only full-time troll, with no power to reign in the unique,
aggressive skill set you've spent 4 yrs honing. So you began
cannibalizing our own list members. Malign, demean, insult,
threaten, intimidate, defame, smear, professionally slander,
raise the stakes/up the ante, threaten some more, harass
harass and harass some more ... pretty much your daily
diet, bud. Breakfast of champions huh.
Self-restraint would have been prudent. But you just can't
help yourself, can you John? Well, you miscalculated.
How many more need to be "cleaned up," mr terminator?
We're down to a dozen, now. My guess is Jeanette, once
this blows over. You're always scanning for the next target
of opportunity, with the smallest likely base of support.
Isn't that so, knucklehead?
You prey on this list, John. Do you have *anything*
positive to contribute?
Or are you here to sabotage what you consider an
illegitimate forum for discussion of ACIM.
~ Lee
Nancy
Do you mean "gig" or "jig"?
n.
Lee
yasha...@yahoo.com
Nancy wrote:
"Do you mean "gig" or "jig"?"
There's no difference, lady.
Ped
Lee
(actually 20 sentences ;) that John has been whining about,
for over a month. What kind of inflated ego makes 20
sentences into 15 horrible paragraphs, in his mind?
This post was 'punished' with an immediate subject-header
smear of Doug, entitled 'Doug Thompson - Religious Extremist".
That'll teach him, eh John? lol Your fragile ego took a hit,
so you made sure he was punished, and others warned what
befalls those who dare ask that you come to your senses.
This is the depths of abuse to which you had dropped, when
I decided to spend whatever time it takes to pull the covers
on your *amazing* con job of painting yourself champion of
"common ethics" - here or anywhere.
____________________________
John had written:
>
> .... People with an education actually have rational
> reasons for what they choose to believe and can express those reasons.
>
> They don't rely on lies and double-talk to make a case where a decent
> education would more than suffice.
>
> Do you notice you can only compete with people with an education if
> you are completely deceptive?
To which Doug responded:
_______
From: "Doug Thompson"
Subject: Re: School Daze
Date: Thursday, June 29, 2006 11:37 PM
And of course you'd flunk Philosophy 101 "Doc" Theo because ad
hominem arguments are fallacies.
And they'd teach you that in Philosophy 101. At any University.
There aren't a whole lot of genuine academics on this ng so you
don't get exposed very often, and usually I just can't be
bothered.
But sometimes John ... sometimes you go so far over the line that
your attention has to be drawn to the fact.
Do you really think that being a meaner, nastier, lower, son-of-a-
bitch low-brow than anyone else is going to win you love and
adulation? Let alone respect?
You're good at it, I give you that much. You're demonically good
at being mean and nasty. Is that what you want to achieve in this
incarnation?
I used to respect you, your intellect, and your way with words.
Now, quite frankly, you disgust me. You have taken a fine talent
and turned it to the basest of objectives.
Where once you showed some genuine love for truth, now all you
show is mean-spirited, vindictive hatred for all that God created.
Where is the John Lopez who can edify us all with his golden
tongue?
I want that John Lopez back!!! I want the kind, considerate,
compassionate, intelligent, thoughtful, reflective man I once knew
as John Lopez to return!
I want YOU, John, to deal with YOUR SHIT and stop trying to
convince me that if only Wayne or Katie or Carrie or whomever
would go away, we'd be in Heaven.
And no, I'm not going to fight with you. I'm just going to
IMPLORE you brother to come back to your SELF!
And for this I pray.
And when Doug starts praying, look out world ...
God Bless you John ... and may God bless you with your SELF!
He'll do that if you are "a little willing" and get out of the
way!
All the best my saviour,
Your brother,
Doug
______________________________
Nancy
In the vernacular, a "gig" is a job;
a "jig" is a dance.
n.
yasha...@yahoo.com
heheheheheheheheeeeee..., yes, all your above details can be summarized
just saying:
"John's the century crusader by using a harmless fcking online keyboard
while believing he's cleansing the world from all evil."
LOLOLOLOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!
> Self-restraint would have been prudent. But you just can't
> help yourself, can you John? Well, you miscalculated.
>
> How many more need to be "cleaned up," mr terminator?
> We're down to a dozen, now. My guess is Jeanette, once
> this blows over. You're always scanning for the next target
> of opportunity, with the smallest likely base of support.
> Isn't that so, knucklehead?
>
> You prey on this list, John. Do you have *anything*
> positive to contribute?
>
> Or are you here to sabotage what you consider an
> illegitimate forum for discussion of ACIM.
Hoohoolloohoohooh..!!! now you're TRYING to exceed what you CAN'T do
upon John's will/ass so VERY REMEMBER your VERY above saying:
This is an UNMODERATED forum, so John can BELIEVE he's assumed his
IMAGINARY role as being an internet cleanser agent from all evil...!!!
yes???
Your exceeding CAN'T overrule the John's will thus such exceeding just
a fcking words harmless useless war.
Ped
Sheryl Valentine
bother to read many posts by a few of our more prolific posters here, if you
get my drift. Sheryl
--
www.SherylValentine.com
www.sherylvalentine.blogspot.com
"Lee" <4gi...@innocent.com> wrote in message
news:eJ6dnQTulNS6_0LZ...@giganews.com...
ellie
In the sense it is being used here.
4. fishing ~ wiggly fishing lure: a fishing lure made to attract a
fish's attention through its motion as it is jerked around in the
water.
the jig is up ~ it is all finished (informal)
yasha...@yahoo.com
Then under Lee's pejorative thus vernacular context I must insist:
There's no difference, lady...!!!
Ped
maz
of opportunity, with the smallest likely base of support.
Not if you ask me, Lee.
Addressing issues as they arise; and unfortunately,
your arguments only confirm the issue of double standard,
teaming up against criticism of such, and throwing bait and
slander into the ring. Think again, bro. You can do better, i'm sure.
The world is watching.
>> You prey on this list, John. Do you have *anything*
positive to contribute?
I start to get the impression, nothing "positive" that
you would be able to comprehend, because you
choose to shoot the messenger before contemplating
the message, even.
namazté
J
Lee wrote:
> J <Jl2...@netzero.com> wrote:
> >
> > ....
> > ~~~Thanks, Jeanette. My position should be clear enough.
> >
> > ~~BTW, How is TRCM generally regarded at TGP? From my posting there a
> > few weeks ago, TRCM seems to be a general embarrasment to the larger
> > course community.
> >
> > I mean I was repeatly ask why I choose to post on a
> > newsgroup where people fight all the time,
>
> LOL You're joking, right?
>
> > and call all this ego mess, A Course in Miracles.
>
> YOU are the face of TRCM dysfunction and savage abuse, John.
Well, Lee, that interesting coming from someone who is attempted to
join a handful of completely dishonest posters to paint me a violent
potential crimianl, then have this hate campaign degenarate into ethnic
slurs. Several posters have remarked about your below the belt tactics,
and a quite a few posters have called you on your threats. Moreover I'm
sure most people note your continuing campaign of loaded words to paint
me as "savage"
The truth is you a hysteric and a liar. That's because you are and
always have been a proponent of selective abuse. In other words, Flynn
you are quite content to arbitrate who has the right to abuse other on
this newsgroup and who has to accept this abuse,
The truth is you've been on this newgroup for years longer than I and
have nearly always turned a blind eye to poster who were actually
savage and dyfuctional to other posters, like Mike Bysouth. You
describe me as "savage," but fail to mention savage and dyfuctional
posters like Wayne Austin and his krew, or the daily 3 year hate
campaign of Carrie Smith and Katie Dean. Moreover fail to show where I
have ever targeted or attacked anyone who wasn't attacking me.
That why you are dishonest prick and hysteric, Flynn. In all your
visceral and decite to paint me as savage, you fail to note that many
poster very much liked and respected me around here You fail to note I
have a reputation for honesty and being a straight shooter. You fail
to note Doug Thompson remarked I had written 5 of the 25 all-time best
posts to TRCM. You fail to note that when I started the moderated forum
to protest the conditions of this newsgroup, nearly 25 posters followed
me within two weeks. Gee, hardly the potrait of dyfunctional,"savage,"
abuse.
More like savage envy from a newgroup saint and ambitious course
teacher who is losing influence for his systemic abuse version of ACIM
dishonestly promoted on a world wide miracles forum. The way you work,
Flynn is you don't abuse but you promote abuse in miracles study.
How that? Because you fully support the unethical hardwiring of
systemic abuse in an unmoderated miracles forum. That gives someone
like you the ability to posture as a newsgroup saint while giving cover
for all the hardwired and highly tolerated abuse inherent in an
unmoderated newsgroup forum. In turn your saintly posturing gives you
the abiltity to decide who has carte blanche to abuse others and who
will be punished for responding to abuse. This means of course, the
hardwired abuse become intractable and systemic, because despite your
pleas, you need to keep the abuse and dyfuction for your own power and
spiritual status.
That's clearly what you are trying to do here. You and a few of your
"friends,"have decided Carolyn Smith has a right to abuse and smear
others by dishonestly painting her as a "harmless grandmother." In
other word you have given Carrie carte blanche to abuse and nearly
everyone knows this.
On the other hand, you have dishonestly singled me out from dozens of
posters who criticize Carrie Smith, and told me I have to accept her
abuse. Like you told me, in so many words, I had to accept Mike
Bysouth's abuse. Like I was told I had to accept Wayne Austin's abuse.
In other words a dishonest prick who crys a river of tears about my
savage abuse, and thinks he is going to continue playing his game of
deciding who can abuse and who has to tolerate this abuse.
Get this, Flynn. It will be a cold day in hell before accept terms and
condition from a weasel like you and your handful of weasel friends.
Moreover it will be another cold day, before I accept your abuse
therapy version of ACIM. And I suspect the entire course community
outside this newsgroup is on my side in that regards.
Sheryl Valentine
another's behavior in the world or here on the ng. All one can do is change
themselves. In fact, telling people that you don't like their behavior only
leads to more of the same....uh....has anyone noticed? My special pet peeve
is when one tells another that he/she is not exhibiting the principles of
ACIM -- especially when the entire Course tells us about the antics of the
ego -- ah...the irony ;) sheryl
--
www.SherylValentine.com
www.sherylvalentine.blogspot.com
"maz" <m...@NoSpamsolcon.nl> wrote in message
news:FYudneu4Eo6...@fiberworld.nl...
maz
Sheryl Valentine schreef:
> One thing I've seen and I agree with Nancy on this, no one can change
> another's behavior in the world or here on the ng. All one can do is change
> themselves. In fact, telling people that you don't like their behavior only
> leads to more of the same....uh....has anyone noticed? My special pet peeve
> is when one tells another that he/she is not exhibiting the principles of
> ACIM -- especially when the entire Course tells us about the antics of the
> ego -- ah...the irony ;) sheryl
>
Sheryl, why does mentioning of behavior always have to be associated
with wanting to change anothers behavior. I don't get it.
That's the same argument by which we, at times, refuse to even
consider critical comments to be of value. ' Oh, you want to change
me....'
But Christ is changeless. Pure level confusion, imho.
namazté
Jeanette
You to John:
"You don't have a CLUE how to interact civilly with other
self-respecting adults, mr blowhard. You have become
another peculiar beast of the internet, who *preys* on
open newsgroups to dump your hostility daily in ways
that moderated groups or 3d life would quickly reject."
You are another individual who claims to be a "Course facilitator," and
offers the co-dependent alliance here all kinds of affirmations in
regards to "forgivness," and all thought you entertain about your
brother being nothing more than about *you.*
I have yet to see you, in word or deed, follow the instruction you post
here day after day. When it comes to your written demonstrations you
are seen as nothing more than an individual who doesn't even begin to
be a living testimony of Course principle.
IOW, another Course folly, pretending to be something else.
This, Lee, according to your own cherished Course standards, is all
about *you.* And John is your salvation according to the beliefs you
state are true.
Jeanette
*****
J
Lee wrote:
> This is the Famous "15 paragraphs" of 'abuse' from Doug
> (actually 20 sentences ;) that John has been whining about,
> for over a month. What kind of inflated ego makes 20
> sentences into 15 horrible paragraphs, in his mind?
~~Well, Lee, here is your "yellow journalism" again. I never said a 15
paragraph post, I said Doug wrote 15 paragraphs of hate rants. This is
accounted for by 2 posts by Thompson, on the same night, in the
"Schools Daze" thread and another post in another thread.
As I remember it, I answered 3 hate rants against me posted by Doug
Thompson. I remember, because on finding a third hate rant posted that
night, it just amazed me Doug should have so much hate for me when I
had never posted anything remotely like this Doug.
Its amazing too, Mr. Flynn you don't even take the time to check your
hysterical claims, when you wish to argue minutia of my statements.
After all, how much effort would it take to check and notice there were
two post on that same thread by Doug Thompson that I addressed and
which he posted that same night. Why then your hysterical rants
claiming only one post? Its seems you are going out of your way to
wage a dishonest vendetta against me.
J
Sheryl Valentine wrote:
> why defend yourself? I gather that there may be very few people who even
> bother to read many posts by a few of our more prolific posters here, if you
> get my drift. Sheryl
______________________________________-
~~Well, Sheryl. Lee Flynn is not defending himself. He is attacking me.
You might notice he is also indirectly attacking you, because Lee
wishes to argue that the simple social problem of MANY people dealing
with an obnoxious, unpleasant poster with is some major spiritual
crisis, and my spiritual error in particular.
If I remember correctly you often confronted Carrie Smith on her lies,
and so did many people here. Do you see anything particulary right or
fair about Lee Flynn singling me out for for confronting Carrie Smith?
Or do you now believe confronting Carrie Smith on her lies and smears
was wrong?
You may prefer Lee Flynn to me for reason. On the other hand, it not
particually fair to encourage Flynn is his campaign to discredit me
for confronting Carrie when we both partcipated in this campaign to
confront an obnoxious poster.
Doc Theo
> Lee,
>
> You to John:
>
> "You don't have a CLUE how to interact civilly with other
> self-respecting adults, mr blowhard. You have become
> another peculiar beast of the internet, who *preys* on
> open newsgroups to dump your hostility daily in ways
> that moderated groups or 3d life would quickly reject."
>
> You are another individual who claims to be a "Course facilitator," and
> offers the co-dependent alliance here all kinds of affirmations in
> regards to "forgivness," and all thought you entertain about your
> brother being nothing more than about *you.*
>
> I have yet to see you, in word or deed, follow the instruction you post
> here day after day. When it comes to your written demonstrations you
> are seen as nothing more than an individual who doesn't even begin to
> be a living testimony of Course principle.
>
> IOW, another Course folly, pretending to be something else.
>
> This, Lee, according to your own cherished Course standards, is all
> about *you.* And John is your salvation according to the beliefs you
> state are true.
>
>
> Jeanette
~~Thanks, Jeanette. What can be more obvious than Lee Flynn is someone
who tells other people how they should act, but certainly holds a
different standard for his own attacks and smears. I think Lee's hate
campaign against me has severely and irreparably damaged his cultivated
image of fairness and objectivity.
Doc Theo
maz wrote:
> >>You're always scanning for the next target
> of opportunity, with the smallest likely base of support.
> Isn't that so, knucklehead?<< (to JL)
>
> Not if you ask me, Lee.
> Addressing issues as they arise; and unfortunately,
> your arguments only confirm the issue of double standard,
> teaming up against criticism of such, and throwing bait and
> slander into the ring. Think again, bro. You can do better, i'm sure.
> The world is watching.
> namazté
~~Thanks, Maz
I think Lee Flynn is losing the battle that he doesn't conveniently
operate on a double standard. What is Flynn saying other than select
people like himself, ~Deborah, Doug Thompson, and Carolyn Smith have a
right to smear people and other people don't have a right to respond?
And if they do respond will be met with dirty tricks like painting them
as a violent, potential, ethnic criminal.
Flynn mistakes the simple social problem of MANY people dealing with an
obnoxious, unpleasant poster with some major spiritual crisis, and my
spiritual error in particular. Lee Flynn is dishonestly attributing to
me the efforts of many posters on this newsgroup who were dealing with
the simple and common social problem of an obnoxious poster.
maz
you are the very first to label one of Doug's posts
as "15 paragr. of abuse to John'.
John used the term "hate rants", not abuse,
and addressed several posts of Doug.
Is your subject header a yellow journalism lesson?
namazté
maz
"Doc Theo" <jfd...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:1155561595....@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> namazté
~~Thanks, Maz
Agreed.
maz
Jeanette
"~~Thanks, Jeanette. What can be more obvious than Lee Flynn is
someone who tells other people how they should act, but certainly holds
a different standard for his own attacks and smears. I think Lee's
hate campaign against me has severely and irreparably damaged his
cultivated image of fairness and objectivity."
It's typical of the condescension, spiritual arrogancy, and refusal to
practice what they preach, of what I call hypocritical Course students.
Now, what is interesting is to note the reasons for the behavior:
1) Need to feel an escape from their own failed personal lives
2) Need for self-adoration, through alliance, by anyone they can find
through egotistical, shallow, means for relationship
3) A gross misunderstanding of Course instruction
4) A determination the Course should be used for "teaching," instead of
learning
5) A decision, and this is the lowest form of this behavior, to usurp
the Holy Spirit
6) To pretend a facade of a life, while attempting to convince "The
Course Community," one's life is about something it isn't
Another short list . . .
Jeanette
*****
kena...@webtv.net
course can see
the lesson.
~Kay
----------------
Aug 13, 2006, 10:50am (EDT-2) From: 4gi...@innocent.com (Lee)
J <Jl2...@netzero.com> wrote:
....
~~~Thanks, Jeanette. My position should be clear enough.
~~BTW, How is TRCM generally regarded at TGP? From my posting there a
few weeks ago, TRCM seems to be a general embarrasment to the larger
course community.
I mean I was repeatly ask why I choose to post on a newsgroup where
people fight all the time, ----------------
Lee posts:
Doc Theo
Jeanette wrote:
> John,
>
> "~~Thanks, Jeanette. What can be more obvious than Lee Flynn is
> someone who tells other people how they should act, but certainly holds
> a different standard for his own attacks and smears. I think Lee's
> hate campaign against me has severely and irreparably damaged his
> cultivated image of fairness and objectivity."
>
> It's typical of the condescension, spiritual arrogancy, and refusal to
> practice what they preach, of what I call hypocritical Course students.
>
> Now, what is interesting is to note the reasons for the behavior:
>
> 1) Need to feel an escape from their own failed personal lives
>
> 2) Need for self-adoration, through alliance, by anyone they can find
> through egotistical, shallow, means for relationship
>
> 3) A gross misunderstanding of Course instruction
>
> 4) A determination the Course should be used for "teaching," instead of
> learning
>
> 5) A decision, and this is the lowest form of this behavior, to usurp
> the Holy Spirit
>
> 6) To pretend a facade of a life, while attempting to convince "The
> Course Community," one's life is about something it isn't
>
> Another short list . .
~~~ I think you are right, Jeanette. Lee Flynn and ~Deborah seem to fit
this profile. Its not suprising they have this overwhelming spiritual
arrogance which gives them the right to attack others and determine
that some people around here have a right to attack and some people
only have a right to be the target of attacks.
Flynn and Deborah Maltman mistake the simple social problem of MANY
people dealing with an obnoxious, unpleasant poster with some major
spiritual crisis, and my spiritual error in particular. This is
spiritual arrogance and extremism applied to an open internet forum.
kena...@webtv.net
(Sheryl Valentine)
another's behavior in the world or here on the ng. All one can do is
change themselves. In fact, telling people that you don't like their
behavior only leads to more of the same....uh....has anyone noticed? My
special pet peeve is when one tells another that he/she is not
exhibiting the principles of ACIM -- especially when the entire Course
tells us about the antics of the ego -- ah...the irony ;) sheryl
--
<grin> when a poster points that that the
other guy is not exhibiting the principles
of ACIM. However, I see nothing wrong
with telling another that I don't like their
behavior - unless I add another sentence
to the effect that they SHOULD change it.
hahaha - don't 'should' on me and I won't
'should' on you ;-) Being honest with as
much clarity as possible, minus the guilt
trip and disrespect is okay IMO.
*
Kay
Happy
John: Thanks, Jeanette. What can be more obvious than Lee Flynn is
someone who tells other people how they should act,
John Lopez:
I'm saying you should act like a decent human being instead of
conducting yourself like a crack whore disrupting this Course group
My comments, retorts and defense of my position are based on common
ethical concerns and expectations,
You act like a slimy crack whore , sweetheart. You smell. ... If you
don't like being told you act like a crack whore , then stop acting
like a crack whore
Sincerely,
John Lopez
Jeanette:
It's typical of the condescension, spiritual arrogancy, and refusal to
practice what they preach, of what I call hypocritical Course
students.
Now, what is interesting is to note the reasons for the behavior:
1) Need to feel an escape from their own failed personal lives
2) Need for self-adoration, through alliance, by anyone they can find
through egotistical, shallow, means for relationship
3) A gross misunderstanding of Course instruction
4) A determination the Course should be used for "teaching," instead
of
learning
5) A decision, and this is the lowest form of this behavior, to usurp
the Holy Spirit
6) To pretend a facade of a life, while attempting to convince "The
Course Community," one's life is about something it isn't
Another short list . . .
Jeanette
HappyD : I'm really sorry to hear this about yourself Jeanette is there
anything I can do to help?
~HappyD
Lee
> Lee wrote:
>> This is the Famous "15 paragraphs" of 'abuse' from Doug
>> (actually 20 sentences ;) that John has been whining about,
>> for over a month. What kind of inflated ego makes 20
>> sentences into 15 horrible paragraphs, in his mind?
>
> ~~Well, Lee, here is your "yellow journalism" again. I never said a
> 15 paragraph post, I said Doug wrote 15 paragraphs of hate rants.
> This is accounted for by 2 posts by Thompson, on the same night, in
> the "Schools Daze" thread and another post in another thread.
Hardly yellow journalism, John. :) As you have stated, an oversight
that missed Doug's other post of that evening, to you. If I had spotted
both -- believe me, I would have posted both. They are both just as
tame, compared to what you generate any given week.
So... What I wrote should not have included ANY mention of
"20 sentences." My mistake, entirely.
I ask that everyone please erase "20 sentences" from their memories,
and replace with the correct "15 paragraphs of hate rants."
>
> As I remember it, I answered 3 hate rants against me posted
> by Doug Thompson.
I said one post. You remember three. Actually, there were just two
that even mentioned your name.
If you're including the 3rd that he wrote, I'd be interested in
seeing the hate rant paragraphs that you're referring to from
that one, as well.
> I remember, because on finding a third hate rant posted
> that night, it just amazed me Doug should have so much hate for me
> when I had never posted anything remotely like this Doug.
>
> Its amazing too, Mr. Flynn you don't even take the time to check your
> hysterical claims, when you wish to argue minutia of my statements.
You didn't take the time to check either, apparently. ;)
> After all, how much effort would it take to check and notice there
> were two post on that same thread by Doug Thompson that I addressed
> and which he posted that same night.
You didn't check either, or you wouldn't be guessing whether
it was 2 or 3.
> Why then your hysterical rants claiming only one post?
"Hysterical rants claiming only one post" ? lol
Your creative fiction is hysterical. ;) You're pretty thin-skinned,
for a badass exterminator.
> Its seems you are going out of your way to wage a dishonest vendetta
> against me.
LOL, John. My "claiming only one post" when there were two is evidence
of a dishonest vendetta? That's one explanation for my having missed
the 2nd post, I suppose..
OR .. I clicked on your "D.T. - Religious Extremist" post and threaded
my messages to see what you were responding to, counted 15 hard
returns (paragraphs) across that *single* post, and missed the earlier
one.
And who the heck cares whether your justification for the subject-
header smear of Doug came from one or two posts..
I'm asking you to quote the famous "15 paragraphs of hate rants" that
you say warranted that "common ethical" response. Pull from as many
posts as you want, to assemble the list. ;)
~ Lee
J
Lee wrote:
> J <Jl2...@netzero.com> wrote:
> > Lee wrote:
> >> This is the Famous "15 paragraphs" of 'abuse' from Doug
> >> (actually 20 sentences ;) that John has been whining about,
> >> for over a month. What kind of inflated ego makes 20
> >> sentences into 15 horrible paragraphs, in his mind?
> >
> > ~~Well, Lee, here is your "yellow journalism" again. I never said a
> > 15 paragraph post, I said Doug wrote 15 paragraphs of hate rants.
> > This is accounted for by 2 posts by Thompson, on the same night, in
> > the "Schools Daze" thread and another post in another thread.
>
> Hardly yellow journalism, John. :) As you have stated, an oversight
> that missed Doug's other post of that evening, to you. If I had spotted
> both -- believe me, I would have posted both. They are both just as
> tame, compared to what you generate any given week.
~~If you would have spotted? Hell, Lee you just made a freakn' federal
case out of one post you "spotted NOT being 15 paragraphs of hate
rants. Tame? I dunno when my full name is used in the a derogatory post
discrediting me I generally call it a hate rant.
So screw you, Flynn you went out your way to call me a liar. I remember
3 posts, and about 15 paragraphs of hate rants. I don't have to prove
3 posts. You're the one calling me a liar by dishonestly showing only
one post. Obviously this makes you a hysterical prick.
Freakn' a**hole
Pieter
"J" <Jl2...@netzero.com> schreef in bericht
news:1155581755.8...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
In short: John and Lee are
practicing the Golden Rule. :-(
(Lee and John: please don't be
angry at me that I use your names> :-) )
>
Lee
J <Jl2...@netzero.com> wrote:
> Lee wrote:
>> J <Jl2...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>> Lee wrote:
>>>> This is the Famous "15 paragraphs" of 'abuse' from Doug
>>>> (actually 20 sentences ;) that John has been whining about,
>>>> for over a month. What kind of inflated ego makes 20
>>>> sentences into 15 horrible paragraphs, in his mind?
>>>
>>> ~~Well, Lee, here is your "yellow journalism" again. I never said a
>>> 15 paragraph post, I said Doug wrote 15 paragraphs of hate rants.
>>> This is accounted for by 2 posts by Thompson, on the same night, in
>>> the "Schools Daze" thread and another post in another thread.
>>
>> Hardly yellow journalism, John. :) As you have stated, an oversight
>> that missed Doug's other post of that evening, to you. If I had
>> spotted both -- believe me, I would have posted both. They are both
>> just as tame, compared to what you generate any given week.
>
>
> ~~If you would have spotted? Hell, Lee you just made a freakn' federal
> case out of one post you "spotted NOT being 15 paragraphs of hate
> rants. Tame?
> I dunno when my full name is used in the a derogatory
> post discrediting me I generally call it a hate rant.
Well, that narrows it down to just two posts, at most. ;)
Doug *never* used your full name at all, in those 3 posts.
'First name in just two.
I'm asking what warranted the subject header smear of Doug
Thompson, John. How about identifying a *single* paragraph
that made that knee-jerk subject header smear of Doug an
"ethical response" to his posts of that evening.
>
> So screw you, Flynn you went out your way to call me a liar. I
> remember 3 posts, and about 15 paragraphs of hate rants. I don't
> have to prove 3 posts.
> You're the one calling me a liar by
> dishonestly showing only one post.
Easily corrected. I'll post the second one that set you off, that
nite. I'm still in search of the 15 paragraphs of hate rants that
you whined about, for over a month. I don't think I'm going
to find them, by any sober estimation. Am I, John..
> Obviously this makes you a hysterical prick.
Only in topsy-turvy Lopez-land. Where all rational thought and
simple comparative standards are magically inverted.
You get very testy, when your charges are challenged. You're
the one who made a big deal about one post, or two, or three.
I say your response to Doug was UNethical, just as your full-
name subject header smear of Deborah as a "white racist" was
an UNethical response to the single post she wrote (then tried
to explain), the one you've been screaming bloody murder
about, for 6 full weeks.
As though YOU alone have some untouchable entitlement to
write and do whatever you please, to demean and denigrate
all those who trip your switch, across THOUSANDS of withering
paragraphs here, in the name of "common ethics" (lol!).. but
may God only help someone like Doug, who writes -2- posts
that dare to *embarrass!* your royal highness.
Look up 'grandiosity' in the Course, John. Your 'power' simply
went to your head, and you got cocky and over-reacted. How
dare! Doug write so harshly about you, and plea that you come
to your senses.. ;) Nuke him, as a "religious extremist"! LOL
> Freakn' a**hole
;)
=Unsnipped==
J
apparently missed on another thread and think over my offer. Because
I'm am fed up with idiots posting racial slurs, the death notice of my
mother, and posting to me they are seeking my photograph to apparently
add to their dossier. Moreover I'm quite prepared to start this course
of action today.
________________________
Well, Lee, here is your "yellow journalism" again. I never said a 15
paragraph post, I said Doug wrote 15 paragraphs of hate rants. This is
accounted for by 2 posts in the "Schools Daze" thread and another post
in another thread. As I remember it, I answered 3 hate rants against
me posted by Doug Thompson.
The simple answer, Flynn, is Doug Thompson referred to me as "demonic"
in this post. This at the same time his friend, Deborah Maltman was
painting me as a violent, potential criminal and posting an ethnic
slur. In response to this outrageous and totally unethical situation,
I posted a subject-header: "Doug Thompson, Religious Extremist."
Now clearly, Doug Thompson calling me "demonic" in the context of me
reacting to an ethnic slur is religious extremism. All of this was
certainly an entirely disproportionate response to my referring to
Maltman as the "Grand Poobah of Reike" when she was hysterically and
emotionally calling me violent, and alluding I was a criminal.
Now, Flynn I know you wish to hide your own complicity in this vendetta
against me which unfortunately degenerated into ethnic slurs and ethnic
stereotyping. Moreover, you clearly wish to hide the obvious fact that
you fed the fires of racism with personal threats and allusions of my
criminality when someone less concerned about personal attacks would
have remained out of the fray or recognized the racial sensitivity of
the situation.
I can only surmise that your continued attacks against me are efforts
to deflect my complaint of racism, an ethnic slur, and ethnic
stereotyping. And your own support and exploitation of this ethnic
stereotyping of Hispanics for you own personal agenda.
Clearly you and others cannot willfully and dishonestly paint me as a
violent, potential criminal, then claim racism has nothing to do with
this dishonest and malicious campaign, when clearly ethnic stereotyping
of Hispanics as potential criminals was exploited to further this
malicious campaign.
So lets be clear, Lee Flynn. I am not amused by this continuing and
hysterical hate campaign you have chosen to wage against me. I have
offered to let these ethnic slurs against Hispanics drop as an
unfortunate mistake, if this vendetta stopped. I'll give you and
others one more chance to cease hostilities.
If not, I am prepared to write complaint letters to Hispanic civil
rights organizations, giving the details, context and remarks of
Deborah Maltman's ethnic slur against Hispanics. I will give them my
reasons for believing ethnic stereotyping was exploited by some TRCM
posters in a hate campaign. I will name names, and ask them to comment
on whether these remarks constitute ethnic slurs especially in the
context of larger campaign to paint me as a violent, potential
criminal. Finally, I will post this letter to TRCM. If necessary, I
will post this complaint letter on TGP, Maz's European miracles forum,
and other miracles lists.
In other words, Lee Flynn, I'll make a formal charge of ethnic
stereotyping against Deborah Maltman, and make a formal charge against
you for feeding the flames of racism. I've already been advised I have
more than enough evidence to make my case for racism.
Certainly you and Maltman can respond to these charges and defend
yourself to these Hispanic civil rights organizations. In fact, I hope
you both do respond, because an honest dialog with a civil rights
organization might bring you back to reality and remind both you and
Maltman that you have social responsibilities beyond your spiritual
posturing on a public forum. Such an honest dialog might also clear
TRCM of the nasty stench of racism and ethnic stereotyping which is
completely inappropriate for a miracle newsgroup. It will also put in
full context this nasty vendetta motivated by hysterical religious
extremism.
The ball is in your court, Lee Flynn. I suggest you cease your
vendetta. For my part, I no longer desire to post to a miracles group
where a handful of religious extremists and wackos wage hate campaigns
with forgiveness on their lips,and exploit ethnic stereotyping to
further their hate campaigns. I plan to cease posting on TRCM when
these above concerns are appropriately addressed by a third party, or
alternatively, I receive a simple apology accompanied by an end to this
hate campaign.
Sincerely,
John Lopez
Pieter
> . . . show where I
> have ever targeted or attacked anyone who wasn't attacking me.
What about the Golden Rule?
> I had to accept Mike Bysouth's abuse.
Imo you forgot to laugh at
his silly, childish teasing.
(Yes: he even used adult words.)
I was quite astonished that
you did not see through it.
One can say: he misused
your not seeing through it.
J
Pieter wrote:
> "J" <Jl2...@netzero.com> schreef in bericht
> news:1155494339....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com..
>
> > . . . show where I
> > have ever targeted or attacked anyone who wasn't attacking me.
>
> What about the Golden Rule?
What about the Golden Rule, Pieter? Are you saying the Golden rule is
an operative rule on TRCM?
>
> > I had to accept Mike Bysouth's abuse.
>
> Imo you forgot to laugh at
> his silly, childish teasing.
> (Yes: he even used adult words.)
> I was quite astonished that
> you did not see through it.
> One can say: he misused
> your not seeing through it.
You know something, Pieter. I resent your dismissing Mike Bysouth
request for people to sexually harrass my mother as silly, childish
teasing.
Actually its this is pretty much the same type of mis-use of course
teachings which lead to Bill Waggnor being told by some around here he
was somehow responsible for his daughters tragedy.
You know what, Pieter. If you can't respect my mother or my feelings
toward my mother despite being advised how I feel, if you think posting
a woman phone number to sexually harass her is childish teashing ---I
politely ask you stop posting to me. We are are so far apart in
thinking that we have nothing to talk about.
Carrie
Maz, how many times have you asked me to leave you alone?
Aside from agreeing to Alan's post asking for a Cease Fire.
I would be glad to leave you alone. It would be nice if you would do
the same back to me, even indirectly in your posts and disclaimers to
others.
Not only sounds like an agreement, it sounds in line with the idea of
Cease Fire.
Okay, you detest me and see me as some horrible monster who has
somehoe done so much to harm you, and others and if anyone isn't now
aware of this you have to keep it up just in case some newbie comes
along too stupid to decide about people here for themeselves. Someone
might actually see me as okay, or not as bad as you make out?
You've more than made your point, the archives must be filled with
it. If anyone puts my name in and any variation of it, your posts
should be right there on top. You have done yourself (and those who
agree with you) proud.
Maybe you can try reallly hard and keep your feeling about me to
yourself from now on?
Actually that's where they come from and belong anyway.
If not, then it's more than clear you reallly DON'T want me to
leave you (or the newsgroup) alone because you keep throwing this out
and feeding on what you get back, and if it slows done for a second,
you have to get it going again. Actually, if you really didn't like it,
not only wouldn't you be keeping it going, you'd be on the nice, kind,
loving, "Carrie free" moderated group you think so highly of?
maz
I said CIAO, which is very explicit in saying,
no more enablement, its done between us here.
Its the same, between mature people, than marking
a departure and a wish to be left alone.
>> Aside from agreeing to Alan's post asking for a Cease Fire.
I wish the smearing, plotting, scheming and trolling Carrie would leave us
all alone.
>>I would be glad to leave you alone. It would be nice if you would do
the same back to me, even indirectly in your posts and disclaimers to
others.<<
Well, lets see, if you consider to leave the world alone and free of your
mean plots, it sounds a fair deal. But I'm not sure with you, sweety.
You've tricked me too often. Lets say, I am open to find a Course based
solution.
I promise.
>> Not only sounds like an agreement, it sounds in line with the idea of
Cease Fire.<<
what fire? I am not shooting at you, I am pointing out facts.
You, on the other hand keep shooting at me, stating that I lie about your
behavior,
which I certainly won't do and haven't done so far..
>> Okay, you detest me and see me as some horrible monster who has
somehoe done so much to harm you, and others and if anyone isn't now
aware of this you have to keep it up just in case some newbie comes
along too stupid to decide about people here for themeselves. Someone
might actually see me as okay, or not as bad as you make out?<<
Oh come on. I love you too, Carrie.
>> You've more than made your point, the archives must be filled with
it. If anyone puts my name in and any variation of it, your posts
should be right there on top. You have done yourself (and those who
agree with you) proud.<<
I am sad that this had to happen. Believe me. You can make a hell of a
difference,
convincing the rest of us that you want to do better. But that's entirely up
to you.
>> Maybe you can try reallly hard and keep your feeling about me to
yourself from now on?<<
Should I exclude you from my evening and morning prayers? Really?
>> Actually that's where they come from and belong anyway.<<
What? Am I alone in the Universe, now? Like you claim to be yourself?
I don't think so, sista!
>> If not, then it's more than clear you reallly DON'T want me to
leave you (or the newsgroup) alone because you keep throwing this out
and feeding on what you get back, and if it slows done for a second,
you have to get it going again. Actually, if you really didn't like it,
not only wouldn't you be keeping it going, you'd be on the nice, kind,
loving, "Carrie free" moderated group you think so highly of?<<
Bah, sloppy thinking. You know I value true and honest exchanges.
I am not reading much, and even not reading much of you any more,
for a long time now, and your baiting is senseless wrt moderation.
You moderate yourself maybe by admitting your deeds and taking
a mature responsibility. And even that will not change the fact that
beneath all your exposed confusion and seemingle malicious conduct,
there is a Soul, beloved as my own, and in Peace in recognition
that we can now demonstrate Peace, if we choose so.
"War is over" (john and yoko and everyone: And so this is Christmas....)
namazté
ellie
OH PUKE! Carrie please don't buy this load of crap!
Lee Flynn
> This discussion is over, Flynn. I suggest you read this post you
> apparently missed on another thread and think over my offer. Because
> I'm am fed up with idiots posting racial slurs, the death notice of my
> mother, and posting to me they are seeking my photograph to apparently
> add to their dossier. Moreover I'm quite prepared to start this course
> of action today.
>
> ________________________
>
> Well, Lee, here is your "yellow journalism" again. I never said a 15
> paragraph post, I said Doug wrote 15 paragraphs of hate rants. This
> is accounted for by 2 posts in the "Schools Daze" thread and another
> post in another thread. As I remember it, I answered 3 hate rants
> against me posted by Doug Thompson.
John. He hurt your feelings. Spit it out, man.
There were no 15 hateful paragraphs that nite.
Maybe 15 hurtful sentences, altogether. ;)
> The simple answer, Flynn, is Doug Thompson referred to me as "demonic"
> in this post. This at the same time his friend, Deborah Maltman was
> painting me as a violent, potential criminal and posting an ethnic
> slur. In response to this outrageous and totally unethical situation,
> I posted a subject-header: "Doug Thompson, Religious Extremist."
>
> Now clearly, Doug Thompson calling me "demonic" in the context of me
> reacting to an ethnic slur is religious extremism.
"Demonically good at being mean and nasty" was what he
wrote, John.
"Clearly" religious extremism? LOL John. I don't think so.
Extremely hurtful, maybe. What Doug *actually* wrote was..
" But sometimes John ... sometimes you go so far over
the line that your attention has to be drawn to the fact.
Do you really think that being a meaner, nastier, lower,
son-of-a-bitch low-brow than anyone else is going to win
you love and adulation? Let alone respect?
You're good at it, I give you that much. You're demonically
good at being mean and nasty. Is that what you want to
achieve in this incarnation? "
Demonically good at it. As in diabolically good at it. Get it?
Common colloquialisms. No encoded religious extremism..
not to other than a talented revisionist, or the very paranoid.
Doug also recalled that you had called him a fraud and charlatan,
to which he replied,
" You're the fraud and charlatan here, masquerading as an
academic while violating every principle that any self-respecting
academic holds dear. "
> All of this was certainly an entirely disproportionate response
Two harsh posts are a "disproportionate" response to what Doug
was saying he's watched you lower yourself to, across the years?
> to my referring to
> Maltman as the "Grand Poobah of Reike" when she was hysterically and
> emotionally calling me violent, and alluding I was a criminal.
Why build a case on mind-reading, John? Doug spoke very candidly.
And he identified what ticked him off most, in his third post,
that evening.
"So why am I HERE ...
One reason, all this Dump On Carrie shit pushes my buttons."
Nothing about Grand Poohba anything, John. Nothing about your
ethnic sensitivity meltdown. Or a hint of criminality.
> Now, Flynn I know you wish to hide your own complicity in this
> vendetta against me which unfortunately degenerated into ethnic slurs
> and ethnic stereotyping. Moreover, you clearly wish to hide the
> obvious fact that you fed the fires of racism with personal threats
> and allusions of my criminality when someone less concerned about
> personal attacks would have remained out of the fray or recognized
> the racial sensitivity of the situation.
TOTAL creative fiction, John. I was there. I know full well what I wrote,
and why. And I've made every effort to explain it to you. It doesn't
serve your John the victim ploy. Fine.
What you've demonstrated is your hyper-sensitivity to the tiniest
inkling of what you've dished out in spades to dozens of posters,
here, for the last four years.
And you remain blind to that. While painting yourself a victim!
Poor baby.
And WHAT a victim. Just look at the perfectly rational people
who have been persuaded to see the the undisputed king of
trash talk victimized! by Deborah's single post. You're diabolically
good at propaganda that fully inverts simple common sense. ;)
> I can only surmise that your continued attacks against me are efforts
> to deflect my complaint of racism, an ethnic slur, and ethnic
> stereotyping. And your own support and exploitation of this ethnic
> stereotyping of Hispanics for you own personal agenda.
>
> Clearly you and others cannot willfully and dishonestly paint me as a
> violent, potential criminal, then claim racism has nothing to do with
> this dishonest and malicious campaign, when clearly ethnic
> stereotyping of Hispanics as potential criminals was exploited to
> further this malicious campaign.
Asked and answered, buffoon. I'm finished with that nonsense.
>
> So lets be clear, Lee Flynn. I am not amused by this continuing and
> hysterical hate campaign you have chosen to wage against me. I have
> offered to let these ethnic slurs against Hispanics drop as an
> unfortunate mistake, if this vendetta stopped. I'll give you and
> others one more chance to cease hostilities.
>
> If not, I am prepared to write complaint letters to Hispanic civil
> rights organizations, giving the details, context and remarks of
> Deborah Maltman's ethnic slur against Hispanics. I will give them my
> reasons for believing ethnic stereotyping was exploited by some TRCM
> posters in a hate campaign. I will name names, and ask them to
> comment on whether these remarks constitute ethnic slurs especially
> in the context of larger campaign to paint me as a violent, potential
> criminal. Finally, I will post this letter to TRCM. If necessary, I
> will post this complaint letter on TGP, Maz's European miracles forum,
> and other miracles lists.
>
> In other words, Lee Flynn, I'll make a formal charge of ethnic
> stereotyping against Deborah Maltman, and make a formal charge against
> you for feeding the flames of racism.
Write your ludicrous letter, John. Your name and reputation are
well known, with anyone who has so much as touched into this n.g.
in the last 4 yrs. You're a puffed-up online thug, living in total
fantasy.
Reading your attempt at making a case to an objective outside party
should be wildly entertaining.
> I've already been advised I have more than enough evidence to make
> my case for racism.
LOL!!
>
> Certainly you and Maltman can respond to these charges and defend
> yourself to these Hispanic civil rights organizations. In fact, I
> hope you both do respond, because an honest dialog with a civil rights
> organization might bring you back to reality and remind both you and
> Maltman that you have social responsibilities beyond your spiritual
> posturing on a public forum. Such an honest dialog might also clear
> TRCM of the nasty stench of racism and ethnic stereotyping which is
> completely inappropriate for a miracle newsgroup. It will also put in
> full context this nasty vendetta motivated by hysterical religious
> extremism.
You do get carried away with your werdz, John. And for the final time,
you are hardly one to be talking about what's 'appropriate,' here or
anywhere else. You're a disastrously unethical windbag.
>
> The ball is in your court, Lee Flynn. I suggest you cease your
> vendetta. For my part, I no longer desire to post to a miracles group
> where a handful of religious extremists and wackos wage hate campaigns
> with forgiveness on their lips,and exploit ethnic stereotyping to
> further their hate campaigns. I plan to cease posting on TRCM when
> these above concerns are appropriately addressed by a third party, or
> alternatively, I receive a simple apology accompanied by an end to
> this hate campaign.
I put no stock at all in your leaving, nor do I care one way or the
other. I believe you're addicted to this gambit you've been running,
this last several years, and that you're incapable of leaving. I'm simply
interested in neutralizing the persuasiveness of your skill for cunning
word-play and mind-bending creative fiction.
Unlike you John, I value this list and the people who write here.
And I don't support any 'hit list' of who has to be silenced or
eliminated, for this to be an "appropriate" forum for discussion
of this Course. I'm all for legitimate boundaries. Measured,
legitimate, ethical ones.
You will continue to do and write whatever you like. I'm perfectly
capable of responding in ways that don't require that I be
disturbed by your antics, and that don't require the compromise
of my ethical values.
I've spent time in your sandbox with you for a bit, these past
weeks. It's been eye-opening, to see what your days have
been filled with for the past four years. I can't really even
imagine it, tbh.. but I have some idea, for the first time.
To imagine thousands upon thousands of snarling retorts,
and chess-playing strikes and counter-strikes, non-stop..
It's not how I want to spend my free time, at all. We both
have much more valuable things to be doing, John.
Good luck to you, in wrestling with your demons.
>
> Sincerely,
Same here.
~ Lee
>
> John Lopez
Doc Theo
> J <Jl2...@netzero.com> wrote:
> > This discussion is over, Flynn. I suggest you read this post you
> > apparently missed on another thread and think over my offer. Because
> > I'm am fed up with idiots posting racial slurs, the death notice of my
> > mother, and posting to me they are seeking my photograph to apparently
> > add to their dossier. Moreover I'm quite prepared to start this course
> > of action today.
> >
> > ________________________
Well, Lee a disappointing reply but certainly consistent with the
hysteria and self-inflation of a former druggie. Still your arrogance
is amazing. The only thing which constrains me from immediately seeking
re-dress is the apparent sincerity and repentence of Deborah Maltman
about this entire affair.
As far as I can see, ~Deborah is the only one of the handful of poster
attempting to paint me as violent criminal who understands that this
was wrong. I also don't thiink ~Deborah is a racist, though she made a
very unfortunate ethnic slur. I think she was used and manipulated by
some long time resident thugs like you, Flynn, who used ~Deborah as a
wedge to attack me and who thinks there is nothing unethical in
alluding I'm violent criminal.
As such I will consider the best approach to seek redress. My purpose
has never to harm anyone but only to be treated fairly.
On the other hand, I suggest an admitted criminal like yourself, cease
your vendetta to paint me as a violent, potential criminal. Because its
clear to me, after this episode that you and Fox are nothing but
unprincipled newsgroup thugs. You don't own this newsgroup, Flynn. Nor
do you speak for this newsgroup. Its clear enough I have as much
support here as you, its just my support is no where near as ruthless
as your supporters. In fact, they are largely gentle, without guile and
not ruthless at all. Which if anyone thinks about it --says it all.
If you wish to continue this vendetta, Flynn --the gloves are off and
you will be responded to in kind, as a thug. You might speak for the
old, highly dysfuctional TRCM of systemic abuse, but you and I know
that the old, TRCM was an outlaw, outcast, rogue miracle list that was
and still is a great embarrassment to the Course community.
Well see if Maz and I have some better ideas for the future of TRCM
than you and Tom Fox
Pieter
>
> Pieter wrote:
>> "J" <Jl2...@netzero.com> schreef in bericht
>> news:1155494339....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com..
>>
>> > . . . show where I
>> > have ever targeted or attacked anyone who wasn't attacking me.
>>
>> What about the Golden Rule?
>
> What about the Golden Rule, Pieter? Are you saying the Golden rule is
> an operative rule on TRCM?
You justify your behavior because of "others"?
Others violating a Rule gives you the "right"
to do is as well? Others are in hell,
so you have the "right" to be there too?
Why blaming others what you do as well?
Your justification would be "*they* started it, not me"?
>> > I had to accept Mike Bysouth's abuse.
>>
>> Imo you forgot to laugh at
>> his silly, childish teasing.
>> (Yes: he even used adult words.)
>> I was quite astonished that
>> you did not see through it.
>> One can say: he misused
>> your not seeing through it.
>
> You know something, Pieter. I resent your dismissing Mike Bysouth
> request for people to sexually harrass my mother as silly, childish
> teasing.
I said: he *misused* it;
it has been terribly gotten out of hand.
> Actually its this is pretty much the same type of mis-use of course
> teachings which lead to Bill Waggnor being told by some around here he
> was somehow responsible for his daughters tragedy.
>
> You know what, Pieter. If you can't respect my mother or my feelings
> toward my mother despite being advised how I feel, if you think posting
> a woman phone number to sexually harass her is childish teashing ---I
> politely ask you stop posting to me. We are are so far apart in
> thinking that we have nothing to talk about.
You seem to think that in any way
I support Mike's misuse. I do not.
I respect you *100%*, without
expecting, let alone demanding,
the same of you towards me.
Pieter
"maz" <m...@NoSpamsolcon.nl> schreef in bericht
news:ZbadnQ5JsJRLiXzZ...@fiberworld.nl...
> I am pointing out facts.
What about this:
"It is always an interpretation that gives rise to
negative emotions, regardless of their seeming
justification by what *appears* as facts."
> I am sad that this had to happen.
Sad that you had to do the dirty job?
Imo you are sad because
you somehow know that
you are mistaken that
"this had to happen."
> Believe me. You can make a hell of a difference,
> convincing the rest of us that you want to do better. But that's entirely
> up to you.
Maybe you think this is the Holy Spirit
speaking through you, while it could be
sheer arrogance, and *usurping* the
Holy Spirit's function.
> Should I exclude you from my evening and morning prayers? Really?
Do you think our Heavenly Father
must be persuaded to give the best
to the one's you are praying for?
So that Carrie's wellbeing depends
on *your* praying for here?
maz
"Pieter" <...
>
> "maz" <m...@NoSpamsolcon.nl> schreef in bericht
> news:ZbadnQ5JsJRLiXzZ...@fiberworld.nl...
>
>> I am pointing out facts.
>
> What about this:
> "It is always an interpretation that gives rise to
> negative emotions, regardless of their seeming
> justification by what *appears* as facts."
>
Who makes you judge of whether I post simple
disclaimers wrt disruptive, plotting posters
with negative emotions, Pieter?
You have no right to do that.
If you want to state that this particular
poster has not factually plotted and schemed
in private to harm Course students and lists,
than say so. By confusing the levels,
as in "nothing unreal exists" to this unfortunate
social problem, no one is served, imho.
>> I am sad that this had to happen.
>
> Sad that you had to do the dirty job?
Pieter, what dirty job?
So you are saying, alerting the public of certain
posters disruptive, unethical secret plotting and
scheming against Course students and lists is
a dirty job? Wow! What does that say about
you, stating I had to do a dirty job on trc-m?
> Imo you are sad because
> you somehow know that
> you are mistaken that
> "this had to happen."
Come on Pieter, now I am responsible
for Carrie's dirty jobs, and am mistaken
that these were happening and can only
be responded to with simple disclaimers
to alert the public with showing simple evidence?
Think again.
>> Believe me. You can make a hell of a difference,
>> convincing the rest of us that you want to do better. But that's entirely
>> up to you.
>
> Maybe you think this is the Holy Spirit
> speaking through you, while it could be
> sheer arrogance, and *usurping* the
> Holy Spirit's function.
You know what, Pieter? You have no right to
judge from where my words are coming, or
even wonder out loud about your subtle statement
that I write from sheer arrogancem usurping the
Holy Spirit's function. Anybody ever mentioned
"weasel" to you? Or the word "spiritual extremist"?
>> Should I exclude you from my evening and morning prayers? Really?
>
> Do you think our Heavenly Father
> must be persuaded to give the best
> to the one's you are praying for?
More wondering out loud, Pieter.
No I do not think that way.
Did anyone ever mention the word "nutcase"
in your circles?
> So that Carrie's wellbeing depends
> on *your* praying for here?
Or the word "imbecile"?
namazté
maz
legitimate, ethical ones.<<
Than you can't object to simple disclaimers
regarding secret e-mail plots to slander and
harm Course lists and Course students, can you?
Thanks for speaking your mind. I do understand
better now how you come to your conclusions.
namazté
maz
"maz" <m...@NoSpamsolcon.nl> schreef in bericht
Lee,
And I'd like to add that its a bit bizarre to see you
spit it all out about your strong perceptions of John
after so many years. Did it take so long to come
to such simple conclusions? It makes no sense.
And your silence wrt truly mean spirited slander
and trashing of the list and members also speaks volumes.
That makes you pov less credible, if credible at all.
I come to the impression that John's observations
are closest to what's really going on here.
And I want to you to know that I am beginning
to worry about you. Your last post is everything
but a demonstration of Course based attempts
to solve a conflict.
namazté
Tom
the hysteria and self-inflation of a former druggie. Still your
arrogance is amazing. The only thing which constrains me from
immediately seeking re-dress is the apparent sincerity and repentence
~ Don't hold back, John. Go for it!!!!
maz
"Tom" <No-...@aso.cat> schreef in bericht
news:4af3e2tbm9rnpp1p9...@4ax.com...
Go for what? John shows he is a gentleman in recognizing
~Deborah's appology, although it was a bit vague.
namazté
maz
"Pieter" <hrdo...@zonnet.nl>...
>
> "J" <Jl2...@netzero.com> schreef in bericht
> news:1155596292.2...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Pieter wrote:
>>> "J" <Jl2...@netzero.com> schreef in bericht
>>> news:1155494339....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com..
>>>
>>> > . . . show where I
>>> > have ever targeted or attacked anyone who wasn't attacking me.
>>>
>>> What about the Golden Rule?
>>
>> What about the Golden Rule, Pieter? Are you saying the Golden rule is
>> an operative rule on TRCM?
>
> You justify your behavior because of "others"?
> Others violating a Rule gives you the "right"
> to do is as well?
Hi Pieter, did it ever occur to you that John is the very last
person on this newsgroup who would NOT appreciate
honest, straight forward and grounded criticism,
applying the golden rule?
And did it ever occur to you that John took on a task
to confront the most despicable behavior on the
very appropriate level, and introduced very effective
measures to promote a more civil and balanced
discussion list?
> Others are in hell,
> so you have the "right" to be there too?
Come on, what is this "others"versus "john" about?
What happened to your Holy Son of God as One?
> Why blaming others what you do as well?
Again, John is not confused about the levels of discourse.
On the other hand, you really seem to be failing in
this regard, imho.
> Your justification would be "*they* started it, not me"?
>
That's plain stupid. John, as anyone else, does not need to justify
civil and responsible confrontation of anti-course
and anti-christ prpaganda in the name of ACIM.
>>> > I had to accept Mike Bysouth's abuse.
>>>
>>> Imo you forgot to laugh at
>>> his silly, childish teasing.
>>> (Yes: he even used adult words.)
>>> I was quite astonished that
>>> you did not see through it.
>>> One can say: he misused
>>> your not seeing through it.
>>
>> You know something, Pieter. I resent your dismissing Mike Bysouth
>> request for people to sexually harrass my mother as silly, childish
>> teasing.
>
> I said: he *misused* it;
> it has been terribly gotten out of hand.
Childish teasing is a friendly term for anti-christ,
anti-course trashing, slander and defamation games.
Do you all want us to standby and watch how your
mother should be harrassed, and say, Pieter
can't you stand a bit of childish teasing? practice
the Course. your mother is not a victim!
That's the golden rule applied, by the way,
if you want the treatment that you dish out, that is.
Jesus!
namazté
maz
Need a handkerchief?
Maybe a bit of medication, it seems you have been
contaminated by the "Course students make me wanna puke"
virus.
namazté
kena...@webtv.net
Aug 15, 2006, 2:24pm (EDT+6) From: m...@NoSpamsolcon.nl (maz)
news:zeudncsUnui...@fiberworld.nl...
>>>And I'd like to add that its a bit bizarre to see you spit it all out
about your strong perceptions of John after so many years. Did it take
so long to come to such simple conclusions? It makes no sense.
*
And I want to you to know that I am beginning to worry about you. Your
last post is everything but a demonstration of Course based attempts to
solve a conflict.
namazté
------------------
~~~I think yesterday was some kind of a
bizarre - zinger effect from living in this
upside-down world! I notice many of us
posted more than usual - and ran the
range from tuned in to waaay out!
I know I did anyway ;-)
~~~In thinking about a cease fire I become
aware that the best I know to do is do the
best I can day by day. When I fall down
that's no shame - - - just gives me the
chance to pick myself up and watch
where I'm walking.
;-)
Kay
Carrie
Lee Flynn wrote:
> J <Jl2...@netzero.com> wrote:
> > This discussion is over, Flynn. I suggest you read this post you
> > apparently missed on another thread and think over my offer. Because
> > I'm am fed up with idiots posting racial slurs, the death notice of my
> > mother, and posting to me they are seeking my photograph to apparently
> > add to their dossier. Moreover I'm quite prepared to start this course
> > of action today.
John has apparently changed his mind about legal action, suing people
and it being attack (based on ACIM)
http://www.jcim.net/orwellian_nightmare2.htm
Or maybe it just applies to Ken Wapnick, or is no longer true 7
years later?
Seems like with ACIM either the Truth is True, or it isn't. On the
internet it seems to shift and change to fit the people involved and
situations.
I was going to post the statements written in the middle of this
about attack, with the course reference and quotes, but it says it's
copyright (the essay which is on a webpage) and I'd probably be sued if
I did.
If it disappears, I have it saved as a file.
I came across this while putting my name in searches to see what
comes up (someone suggested I do this). And, yes, a lot of what John
and Maz have written about me, lies, using my name in the subject line
or enough in the post so the search picks up on it, various newsreaders
from around the world, it does come up early on in a search.
So, they have accomplished their task (with the help of their loyal
supporters)
I also see today, Maz is still writing disclaimers about me, even
though I thought last night, we had agreed he would stop doing this if
I left him alone as he has many times requested? Maybe it was he woudl
stop doing this if I leave everyone on the internet alone? Maybe he
reallly doesn't want to be left alone? What a pathetic, puny,
powerless little man he seems to be- he'll show this neurotic old
grandmother who's in charge here! At least on the internet. People
like that are scary, because you never know what they'll do if they
feel pushed. We see it in the news everyday. And he (with others here)
use ACIM, and keeping it, and the group safe, to justify it. Even
though we all know what ACIM says about attack, defense, and the need
for it...
After finding out that the phone number John had said was his
mothers' (alive or dead) is STILL LISTED, with John's name and address
on it and this isn't personal searches, it's on the phone number
reverse searches available for all )amd flashing on that movie (PSYCHO)
with the guy running the Bates Motel, with his dead mother upstairs in
a chair, and him dressing up and pretending to be her at times, I
experienced what must be what Nancy means by "skin crawling")
Some kind of sick game, where the phone number is left the same, made
out to be one's mother, bait thrown out- waiting for wackos from the
internet to call and sexually harrass someone this THINK is someone's
mother, but is actually the son.
As I said last night, this is too weird for me and goes way beyond
"games".
But, some here seem to agree with it and enjoy it. Actually, they
can be the next "course enemy" because at some point this will happen,
no matter how they try to keep in good with the right people and avoid
it. And not see how close it comes to sounding like a cult.
And yes, I still see the lessons and appreciate the teachers. And
realize all that I think I get back would have been avoided if I'd
played the game right, from the start and/or shut the fuck up.
I said that to someone once who said "if you have something to say,
there's someone who needs to hear it, and can benefit from it, even if
you never know who or what it is".
Hopefully, it hasn't all been for nothing.
Carrie
> > > ~~~Thanks, Jeanette. My position should be clear enough.
> > >
> > > ~~BTW, How is TRCM generally regarded at TGP? From my posting there a
> > > few weeks ago, TRCM seems to be a general embarrasment to the larger
> > > course community.
> > >
> > > I mean I was repeatly ask why I choose to post on a
> > > newsgroup where people fight all the time,
> >
> > LOL You're joking, right?
> >
> > > and call all this ego mess, A Course in Miracles.
> >
> > YOU are the face of TRCM dysfunction and savage abuse, John.
> >
> > You've worked daily, for over four years, for that title.
> >
> > Only in your topsy-turvy fantasies are you the champion
> > of anything but grabbing Katie's empty crown as dirtiest,
> > most menacing egomaniac in the room.
> >
> > You don't have a CLUE how to interact civilly with other
> > self-respecting adults, mr blowhard. You have become
> > another peculiar beast of the internet, who *preys* on
> > open newsgroups to dump your hostility daily in ways
> > that moderated groups or 3d life would quickly reject.
> >
> > Your 'colorful' arrogance, ad hom excuse for intelligent
> > debate and insults for any occasion wouldn't last six
> > weeks, on a moderated list.
> >
> > The slick difference with you is that you CLAIM that the
> > abuse and unethical tactics which *you* most personify
> > today.. are what you are here to "clean up!" LOL ;)))
> >
> > It was a very good con while it lasted, John.
> >
> > You simply ran into a problem, once you began harassing
> > people whose only 'crime' was calling attention to your
> > increasingly surly and unethical excesses. IOW, once the
> > other "trolls" got bored and left, you clearly became our
> > only full-time troll, with no power to reign in the unique,
> > aggressive skill set you've spent 4 yrs honing. So you began
> > cannibalizing our own list members. Malign, demean, insult,
> > threaten, intimidate, defame, smear, professionally slander,
> > raise the stakes/up the ante, threaten some more, harass
> > harass and harass some more ... pretty much your daily
> > diet, bud. Breakfast of champions huh.
> >
>
> heheheheheheheheeeeee..., yes, all your above details can be summarized
> just saying:
>
> "John's the century crusader by using a harmless fcking online keyboard
> while believing he's cleansing the world from all evil."
>
> LOLOLOLOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!
>
>
>
> > Self-restraint would have been prudent. But you just can't
> > help yourself, can you John? Well, you miscalculated.
> >
> > How many more need to be "cleaned up," mr terminator?
> > We're down to a dozen, now. My guess is Jeanette, once
> > this blows over. You're always scanning for the next target
> > of opportunity, with the smallest likely base of support.
> > Isn't that so, knucklehead?
> >
> > positive to contribute?
> >
> > Or are you here to sabotage what you consider an
> > illegitimate forum for discussion of ACIM.
>
>
> Hoohoolloohoohooh..!!! now you're TRYING to exceed what you CAN'T do
> upon John's will/ass so VERY REMEMBER your VERY above saying:
>
> This is an UNMODERATED forum, so John can BELIEVE he's assumed his
> IMAGINARY role as being an internet cleanser agent from all evil...!!!
>
> yes???
>
> Your exceeding CAN'T overrule the John's will thus such exceeding just
> a fcking words harmless useless war.
>
> Ped
You know that saying "if a tree falls out in the middle of nowhere
and there's nothing around with ears to hear it, would there be sound?"
For some reason I just thought of that. LIke "if someone writes
stuff here that's not true and created to hurt and do harm, and the
person doesn't read it, is there any harm done?"
You might be one of the few people who reallly understand and
apprecaite this (LOL)
in the world but not of it- this group is good practice.
Silly egos....
kena...@webtv.net
(EDT+6) From: m...@NoSpamsolcon.nl (maz)
Tom:
~ Don't hold back, John. Go for it!!!!
========
Maz:
>>>Go for what? John shows he is a gentleman in recognizing ~Deborah's
appology, although it was a bit vague.
namazté
===============
~~Good on you Maz. A call for peace
sometimes sounds like a tiny voice crying
in the wilderness, but often it is joined
with others and we know that where two
or more are gathered in Christ, there
he will also. Be peace Maz and
know that you are seen/heard and others
join with you.
*
Kay
Carrie
It never lasts long. Sometimes not even an hour.
He seems to go into withdrawal if he can't write to or about me.
But, of course, how someone else is or seems to be doesn't have to
effect me and how I am (or want to be)
it's like exercising a muscle. I still need practice at laughing
at the lies and bait that gets thrown out, instead of taking it
seriously and thinking people really care about truth. Except for what
THEY want to believe it to be.
You are one of the few who show me it can be done. Standing up for
truth, without getting bogged down in (drawn into) what isn't. Not
taking it all so seriously here.
Lee
maz <m...@NoSpamsolcon.nl> wrote:
>>> I'm all for legitimate boundaries. Measured, legitimate, ethical
>>> ones.<<
>
> Than you can't object to simple disclaimers
> regarding secret e-mail plots to slander and
> harm Course lists and Course students, can you?
There is nothing simple about the present condemnation
that you assign to an email correspondence that ended
3 or 4 yrs ago. You're of course free to interpret the
present meaning and value of that correspondence, and
to post links for as long as you like. It's an open list.
Don't expect, however, that there is a mandate for me
or others to accept your reasoning, or remain silent
about our own.
>
> Thanks for speaking your mind. I do understand
> better now how you come to your conclusions.
>
> namazté
Imo, whenever Course students feel differently about
issues, there is greater opportunity for mutual understanding,
shared learning and resolution of conflict, if our exchanges
are guided by the intention - and the expectation - of mutual
good will.
I hope that the expectation of essential good will between us
will remain intact, maz, despite whatever differences we have
yet to understand and sort out. There is nothing in agreeing
to disagree, when everything is said and done, that need
violate that mutual respect.
If we stumble, you and I, then I trust we'll re-establish when
the dust settles. I very much trust your essential good will
and your very best intentions.
~ Lee
Lee
I agree that seeing Deborah's name removed from John's
list of defendants was a great relief. Presumably there will
be no further basis for pursuing a grievance against her,
unless *she* herself does or says something that justifies
reinstating her guilt.
~ Lee
Doc Theo
Pieter wrote:
> > You know what, Pieter. If you can't respect my mother or my feelings
> > toward my mother despite being advised how I feel, if you think posting
> > a woman phone number to sexually harass her is childish teashing ---I
> > politely ask you stop posting to me. We are are so far apart in
> > thinking that we have nothing to talk about.
>
> You seem to think that in any way
> I support Mike's misuse. I do not.
> I respect you *100%*, without
> expecting, let alone demanding,
> the same of you towards me.
__________________________________
It not about what you "demand," or what you expect. Its about
interpreting A Course in Miracles to encouraged and perpetuate the
codependency of abuse. Which is what you are essentially arguing and
which this newsgroup demonstrates-----ACIM in service of the
codependency of abuse.
Rational, intelligent and authentically spiritual people mentally check
their "spiritual pontificating," with real world examples. Authentic
spiritualities and authentically spiritual people don't offer apologies
for people who request other people to sexually harrass women over the
phone.
When these constant apologies for off-the-wall, harmful, clearly
mean-spirited, and sometimes criminal behavior are justified by
spiritual quotes and interpretation, one clearly get systemic abuse
driven by codependency. After all codependency is nothing but excuses
and denials for destructive behavior. Codependency is nothing but a
collective joining and collective denial of destructive behanvior.
As such Pieter you should consider what you are doing. But understand
this. Your cavilier attitude to destructive, abusive behavior
unfortuately linked to A Course in Miracles is noted. Moreover, as a
rational, educated man, I find your apologies, and equivocations for
obcence and outrageous behavior of someone flaunting all moral and
social conventions is revolting, more so when this involved my mother.
Finally, Pieter you might consider that the world is filled with women
and the course world is filled with women. Course students who are
women (outside this newsgroup) are very unlikely to interprete A
Course in Miracles in any way which condones, or apologies for sexual
harrasment. Request for sexally harrasing someone on a public forum
would not be minimized a silly, childish teasing. In other words, your
words to the contrary are your highly personal interpretation or ACIM.
I assure you, if Mike Bysouth had done this on an authentic spiritual
group like TGP, the posters and the women there would have justifiable
outraged to have such behavior linked to course study and certainly
would not be offering course-base apologies and defenses which would
ONLY encourage more outrages like this in the future.
But then again, civil moderation prevent the dynamics of abuse and
co-dependeny from being a spiritual issue and part of the spiritual
equation. In short, your course interpretaion clearly mirrors the
course enviroments you accept, and you should be aware of this.
Lee
Doc Theo <jfd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Pieter wrote:
>> ....
>> You seem to think that in any way
>> I support Mike's misuse. I do not.
>> I respect you *100%*, without
>> expecting, let alone demanding,
>> the same of you towards me.
> __________________________________
>
> ....
> When these constant apologies for off-the-wall, harmful, clearly
> mean-spirited, and sometimes criminal behavior are justified by
> spiritual quotes and interpretation, one clearly get systemic abuse
> driven by codependency. After all codependency is nothing but excuses
> and denials for destructive behavior. Codependency is nothing but a
> collective joining and collective denial of destructive behanvior.
Working more generally with what you've written, I come up with..
Where abusive, unethical or borderline criminal behavior are
justified or rationalized by a particular ideology, one finds an
embedded codependency among those who share that ideology.
This codependency implicates those whose denial of destructive
behavior tactily endorse or encourage that behavior.
Is that pretty close to your intended meaning, John?
~ Lee
Doc Theo
Lee wrote:
> I agree that seeing Deborah's name removed from John's
> list of defendants was a great relief. Presumably there will
> be no further basis for pursuing a grievance against her,
> unless *she* herself does or says something that justifies
> reinstating her guilt.
>
> ~ Lee
Well, Lee. It's a great relief that you finally understand that making
dishonest illusions that I have sordid criminal past which could
somehow revealed by a background check is wrong. ~Deborah got it, and
you only got it the hard way, when you disliked being remind that you
are admitted criminal.
Moreover, its amazing, Flynn you remain an arrogant and self-inflated
idiot. You obviously have no shame in referring to my pursuit of
grievances while giving your own and very obvious pursuit of
grievances, a pass. What is this but your continuing effort to promote
the rather unique nature of TRCM based course interpretation --the
codependency of abuse.
Carrie
I know this is now over and done, but have you (or did you ever)
think about how this looks for you, too?
Putting my name in a search brings this stuff up, but so doesn't
putting YOUR NAME in, too.
There's not much to be done about this now, the archives are there,
"for the record".
Whatever you think it shows about me, it also shows something about
you, too.
If I wrote lies and false accusations about you, over and over, and
came to realize this isn't course related (and would also show more
about ME, overall) I could put my name in Search (as author) and delete
them. It might take time, but it could be done.
I don't know how this relates to "acknowledge but you have been
mistaken and all effects of your mistakes are undone". Maybe nobody
would have to do anything.
And I'm not even insinuating you do this. Just saying it all comes
up in a search using your name, as well as mine.
If anyone could show me where I have called anyone obscerne names,
wrote lies about them, and did them all the harm I hear about (but
nobody could ever show me proof of in a specific way) I'll be glad to
remove them.
Though, I realize this could open up a whole new can of worms,
with people saying "you said this about someone and it's a lie!" when
I know it's true. And there seems to be a lot here where one person
says I have done much to hurt/attack (plot against) someone else, when,
in all fairness, if someone else feels like this, it would be up to
them to say so and specifically when and how.
It also has the potential to temp people to start asking for
explainations, that have already been explained at least once.
But I don't know what else to do.
Tom
ever) think about how this looks for you, too?"
~ I'm sorry to tell you this, Carrie, but based upon the information
contained within the TRCM archives, you will never be elected
President of the United States.
Doc Theo
Well, Lee I wrote what I wrote and the meaning is clear enough. In your
re-statement, I reject your imposed notion of "implicates," because the
notion is vague and ill defined, and moreover, introduces an
unnecessary flavor of personal accusation which should be advoided in
favor of objectivity to the over all problem of codependency.
Quite obviously counter-accusations of abuse within the observed system
is part of the dynamics of co-dependency and does little but
perpetutate the system by manipulted guilt.
Doc Theo
Well, Tom. Most likely one of the reasons you are not in a courtroom
but acting like a nut on the internet is you apparently have little
concept of a measured response.
Tom
John "Well, Tom. Most likely one of the reasons you are not in a
courtroom but acting like a nut on the internet is you apparently have
little concept of a measured response."
~ It is very obvious that you are bluffing, John.
Doc Theo
A good one, Maz
Lee
Your words were that "codependency is a collective joining and
collective denial of destructive behavior." You're not suggesting
complicity in the destructive behavior that you're calling "systemic
abuse?" If not, why flag codependency as an issue?
>
> Quite obviously counter-accusations of abuse within the observed
> system is part of the dynamics of co-dependency and does little but
> perpetutate the system by manipulted guilt.
If anyone else can translate this last paragraph, I'd appreciate it.
TIA,
~ Lee
Lee
For added clarification and instruction in the concept of a "measured
response," please see the constrained and highly rational response
that John demonstrated, to the potentially inflammatory remark by
ms Maltman, of 6 weeks ago. LOL
Doc Theo
Get an education, Lee. If you don't have a basic, formal college
education, why not let me know? I won't waste my time assuming you have
an education.
Carrie
It's the same old same old with an attempt to put it into intelligent
sounding jargon, like presenting it in a new way makes it any
different (and more intelligent)
Carrie
Well, that's a plus (LOL)
Tom
education, why not let me know? I won't waste my time assuming you
have an education."
~ Where did you get your formal college education, John? What degrees
did you earn, and from what schools?
Doc Theo
Carrie wrote:
> Lee Flynn wrote:
> > J <Jl2...@netzero.com> wrote:
> > > This discussion is over, Flynn. I suggest you read this post you
> > > apparently missed on another thread and think over my offer. Because
> > > I'm am fed up with idiots posting racial slurs, the death notice of my
> > > mother, and posting to me they are seeking my photograph to apparently
> > > add to their dossier. Moreover I'm quite prepared to start this course
> > > of action today.
>
> John has apparently changed his mind about legal action, suing people
> and it being attack (based on ACIM)
You are seriously confused. Complaints about ethic sterotyping to civil
rights group are not legal action. Get an education.
--snip-garbage
> After finding out that the phone number John had said was his
> mothers' (alive or dead) is STILL LISTED, with John's name and address
> on it and this isn't personal searches, > After finding out that the phone number John had said was his it's on the phone number
> reverse searches available for all )amd flashing on that movie (PSYCHO)
> with the guy running the Bates Motel, with his dead mother upstairs in
> a chair, and him dressing up and pretending to be her at times, I
> experienced what must be what Nancy means by "skin crawling")
~~~To begin with Carrie its none of your business about the details of
my personal life. Moreover I resent you posting disinformation and
smears involving members of my family. This is unconscionable and the
type of wacko, unrestrained behavior for which you are so infamous.
To begin, Miss Wacko, the phone number in question was my mother's
phone number for many years. I used this number for limited business
purpose during the time my mother was sick and spent a great deal of
time looking after her. I retained the number after her death. This is
how this phone number is both associated with me and associated with my
mother.
Any of you wacko Internet sleuths should be able to verify I had
another listed phone number at the time. Again I use my mother's phone
number for limited business purpose in order not to incur unnecessary
business expense for an essentially home-base webmastering business.
On the other hand since the wacko INTERNET sleuths google for their
info on the Internet, this phone number associated with my mother was
the one posted as my number. Certainly I had no expectation that this
would happen on a miracles newsgroup, and I was caught off guard
attempting to prevent my sick mother from being potentially harassed by
Internet nut cases.
Your willingness, to turn these common circumstance into Psycho movie
and Bates motel is well noted. Get this Carolyn Smith, my personal life
and the personal life of my family is none of your business.
If idiots like you think I'm afraid of your unethical inquiries and
attempts to secure information on my family, you are sadly mistaken. I
assure any of you idiots, if you move from the unethical and highly
neurotic to the criminal, I'll quickly take legal actions to protect my
interest. Moreover I suspect many posters are noting your and others
highly unethical behavior in this regard.
In addition, do not play equivalently with your emails. Your emails
were publicly posted by the recipient of your emails. Your emails
described your private posture to your very public actions on public
discussion boards. My phone number, my given name, my business affairs
and relationship to mother have nothing to do with this discussion
board unless you have personal business with me.
I'd say its more than obvious that your influence here has speeded the
degenaration of this newsgroup into den of cyberstalkers, and the use
of cyberstalking techniques to control newsgroup discourse.
__snip the rest of Carolyn Smith's garbage ---
Carrie
I guess you must have wrote this before the latest "let's have peace"
ones.
And, as I have explained before, but maybe you forgot, it wasn't
course students want to make me puke, it was "if I hear the term course
student again (as it is used here and I think you know what I mean)
I'll puke". At least that's how I remember it, and it's not at all the
same as you and others have turned it into.
Like "I am a course student and you aren't" and "if you were a real
course student" and of course the often used suggestion for someone
else to "do the workbook(again)".Used as a form of separation and
sides.
Which doesn't tie in with "accepting the Atonement for oneself".
Doesn't take much to change something around and turn it into
something else.
Tom
wasn't course students want to make me puke, it was "if I hear the
term course student again (as it is used here and I think you know
what I mean) I'll puke". At least that's how I remember it, and it's
~ Don't sweat it. I've met more than one Course student that made me
want to puke. Egad! More than one such puke-provokers post here
regularly.
happyslave
Your rantings are more pathetic every day.
Please get some help for you insane projections.
H
J wrote:
> This discussion is over, Flynn. I suggest you read this post you
> apparently missed on another thread and think over my offer. Because
> I'm am fed up with idiots posting racial slurs, the death notice of my
> mother, and posting to me they are seeking my photograph to apparently
> add to their dossier. Moreover I'm quite prepared to start this course
> of action today.
>
> ________________________
>
> Well, Lee, here is your "yellow journalism" again. I never said a 15
> paragraph post, I said Doug wrote 15 paragraphs of hate rants. This is
> accounted for by 2 posts in the "Schools Daze" thread and another post
> in another thread. As I remember it, I answered 3 hate rants against
> me posted by Doug Thompson.
>
> The simple answer, Flynn, is Doug Thompson referred to me as "demonic"
> in this post. This at the same time his friend, Deborah Maltman was
> painting me as a violent, potential criminal and posting an ethnic
> slur. In response to this outrageous and totally unethical situation,
> I posted a subject-header: "Doug Thompson, Religious Extremist."
>
> Now clearly, Doug Thompson calling me "demonic" in the context of me
> reacting to an ethnic slur is religious extremism. All of this was
> certainly an entirely disproportionate response to my referring to
> Maltman as the "Grand Poobah of Reike" when she was hysterically and
> emotionally calling me violent, and alluding I was a criminal.
>
> Now, Flynn I know you wish to hide your own complicity in this vendetta
> against me which unfortunately degenerated into ethnic slurs and ethnic
> stereotyping. Moreover, you clearly wish to hide the obvious fact that
> you fed the fires of racism with personal threats and allusions of my
> criminality when someone less concerned about personal attacks would
> have remained out of the fray or recognized the racial sensitivity of
> the situation.
>
> I can only surmise that your continued attacks against me are efforts
> to deflect my complaint of racism, an ethnic slur, and ethnic
> stereotyping. And your own support and exploitation of this ethnic
> stereotyping of Hispanics for you own personal agenda.
>
> Clearly you and others cannot willfully and dishonestly paint me as a
> violent, potential criminal, then claim racism has nothing to do with
> this dishonest and malicious campaign, when clearly ethnic stereotyping
> of Hispanics as potential criminals was exploited to further this
> malicious campaign.
>
> So lets be clear, Lee Flynn. I am not amused by this continuing and
> hysterical hate campaign you have chosen to wage against me. I have
> offered to let these ethnic slurs against Hispanics drop as an
> unfortunate mistake, if this vendetta stopped. I'll give you and
> others one more chance to cease hostilities.
>
> If not, I am prepared to write complaint letters to Hispanic civil
> rights organizations, giving the details, context and remarks of
> Deborah Maltman's ethnic slur against Hispanics. I will give them my
> reasons for believing ethnic stereotyping was exploited by some TRCM
> posters in a hate campaign. I will name names, and ask them to comment
> on whether these remarks constitute ethnic slurs especially in the
> context of larger campaign to paint me as a violent, potential
> criminal. Finally, I will post this letter to TRCM. If necessary, I
> will post this complaint letter on TGP, Maz's European miracles forum,
> and other miracles lists.
>
> In other words, Lee Flynn, I'll make a formal charge of ethnic
> stereotyping against Deborah Maltman, and make a formal charge against
> you for feeding the flames of racism. I've already been advised I have
> more than enough evidence to make my case for racism.
>
> Certainly you and Maltman can respond to these charges and defend
> yourself to these Hispanic civil rights organizations. In fact, I hope
> you both do respond, because an honest dialog with a civil rights
> organization might bring you back to reality and remind both you and
> Maltman that you have social responsibilities beyond your spiritual
> posturing on a public forum. Such an honest dialog might also clear
> TRCM of the nasty stench of racism and ethnic stereotyping which is
> completely inappropriate for a miracle newsgroup. It will also put in
> full context this nasty vendetta motivated by hysterical religious
> extremism.
>
> The ball is in your court, Lee Flynn. I suggest you cease your
> vendetta. For my part, I no longer desire to post to a miracles group
> where a handful of religious extremists and wackos wage hate campaigns
> with forgiveness on their lips,and exploit ethnic stereotyping to
> further their hate campaigns. I plan to cease posting on TRCM when
> these above concerns are appropriately addressed by a third party, or
> alternatively, I receive a simple apology accompanied by an end to this
> hate campaign.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> John Lopez
maz
degenaration of this newsgroup into den of cyberstalkers, and the use
of cyberstalking techniques to control newsgroup discourse.<<
Yes, certainly. But this is the past.
Hope is there that minds change their
commitment from chaos to truth.
I'm all for it.
namazté
Carrie
I know
People make what they want from something anyway.
I don't think the label "course student" is in line with the course,
anyway. The idea we are all one, in Truth.
Lee
>>> Quite obviously counter-accusations of abuse within the observed
>>> system is part of the dynamics of co-dependency and does little but
>>> perpetutate the system by manipulted guilt.
>>
>> If anyone else can translate this last paragraph, I'd appreciate it.
>>
>> TIA, ~ Lee
>
> Get an education, Lee. If you don't have a basic, formal college
> education, why not let me know? I won't waste my time assuming you
> have an education.
If someone with a basic formal education can please translate that
last sentence, I'd appreciate it. ;)
TIA, ~ Lee
Doc Theo
happyslave wrote:
> John,
>
> Your rantings are more pathetic every day.
>
> Please get some help for you insane projections.
>
> H
Hi Happyslave.
Just wondering if Wayne Austin and the Eots krew are still ranting
about the Holy Spirit as "little fart." You guys are so surreal, its
amazing you even keep your cult together.
You might remember you and Eots have a entire archieve of pathetic
rants,
maz
"Carrie" <starch...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1155669287.4...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
maz wrote:
> >> OH PUKE!
>
> Need a handkerchief?
>
> Maybe a bit of medication, it seems you have been
> contaminated by the "Course students make me wanna puke"
> virus.
>
> namazté
I guess you must have wrote this before the latest "let's have peace"
ones.
correct.
And, as I have explained before, but maybe you forgot, it wasn't
course students want to make me puke, it was "if I hear the term course
student again (as it is used here and I think you know what I mean)
I'll puke". At least that's how I remember it, and it's not at all the
same as you and others have turned it into.
correct.
Like "I am a course student and you aren't" and "if you were a real
course student" and of course the often used suggestion for someone
else to "do the workbook(again)".Used as a form of separation and
sides.
understood.
Which doesn't tie in with "accepting the Atonement for oneself".
understood.
Doesn't take much to change something around and turn it into
something else.
nah, the meaning hasn't been altered much, don't you think?
It wasn't turned into something else, imo, but I'm glad you explained.
namazté
happyslave
Lets focus on your behavior for the present... it is what is happening
now ... and it is totally pathetic.
Please get help.
H
Doc Theo
Oh, Lee you mean you don't have even a basic college undergraduate
education.
Let's see if I can simplify this paragraph.
How about --People accusing each other of abuse generally only
perpetute the abuse in an abusive, co-dependent system I
In other words, Lee if one is talking about a system of abuse and the
dynamics of co-dependency, it serves no purpose to be in the system
while making accusations of abuse to each other.
Should be a simple enough concept.
Doc Theo
happyslave wrote:
> I understand why you would like to change the subject John. ;-)
Now, Teddy, why would I wish to discuss anything with a nutcase from a
nutcase cult?
Lee
Doc Theo <jfd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Lee Flynn wrote:
>> J <Jl2...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>> This discussion is over, Flynn. I suggest you read this post you
>>> apparently missed on another thread and think over my offer. Because
>>> I'm am fed up with idiots posting racial slurs, the death notice of
>>> my mother, and posting to me they are seeking my photograph to
>>> apparently add to their dossier. Moreover I'm quite prepared to
>>> start this course of action today.
>>>
>>> ________________________
>
> Well, Lee a disappointing reply but certainly consistent with the
> hysteria and self-inflation of a former druggie. Still your arrogance
> is amazing. The only thing which constrains me from immediately
> seeking re-dress is the apparent sincerity and repentence of Deborah
> Maltman about this entire affair.
>
> As far as I can see, ~Deborah is the only one of the handful of poster
> attempting to paint me as violent criminal who understands that this
> was wrong.
> I also don't thiink ~Deborah is a racist, though she made a
> very unfortunate ethnic slur.
What a shame, then, that you implied as much in a punishing
full-name subject-header smear by the title,
"Are The REAL Lee Fynn and Deborah Maltman white Racists?"
'Common ethical response. I know.
> I think she was used and manipulated by
> some long time resident thugs like you, Flynn, who used ~Deborah as a
> wedge to attack me and who thinks there is nothing unethical in
> alluding I'm violent criminal.
>
> As such I will consider the best approach to seek redress. My purpose
> has never to harm anyone but only to be treated fairly.
>
> On the other hand, I suggest an admitted criminal
Only in Lopez-land does "an admitted criminal" not commonly
refer to one who admits having been convicted of a crime.
By your yellowish definition, anyone who admits to having
violated drug statutes at any time in their lives (or even
local statutes), is an "admitted criminal." lol
And I suppose you'll claim that never in your life have
you violated federal statutes against non-violent crimes.
Well bully for you, I say. A mind-altering substance along
the way might have spared us all a lot of grief. ;)
> like yourself, cease
> your vendetta to paint me as a violent, potential criminal. Because
> its clear to me, after this episode that you and Fox are nothing but
> unprincipled newsgroup thugs. You don't own this newsgroup, Flynn. Nor
> do you speak for this newsgroup.
I've only ever claimed to speak for myself.
> Its clear enough I have as much
> support here as you, its just my support
> is no where near as ruthless as your supporters.
I think you mean to say, as your assembled detractors.
I would just as soon that mine were the lone voice opposing
your methods, tactics and ideology, to be perfectly honest.
But it suits your purpose to claim a 'conspiratorial vendetta,'
rather than acknowledging a simple collective rejection of your
behavior, premises and assumptions (after four solid years of
your antics), by those who are speaking out at once.
> In fact, they are largely gentle, without guile
> and not ruthless at all. Which if anyone thinks about it --says it
> all.
IMO, they want very badly to believe the best about you, John.
They are, as you say, a guileless group. And you are a very
persuasive wordsmith, talented prosecutor, credible victim,
and deceitful propagandist. That's my opinion and explanation.
Only the very gentlest still believe you, from what I can see.
> If you wish to continue this vendetta, Flynn --the gloves are off and
> you will be responded to in kind, as a thug.
vendetta: noun
1. prolonged feud: a prolonged bitter feud or quarrel
2. blood feud between families
[Mid-19th century. Via Italian < Latin vindicta "vengeance"]
Let me explain what a vendetta is, imo. A vendetta is an extended
refusal to see another free from grievances of the past. A lengthy
desire or attempt to exact vengeance. As an example, your three
year campaign of withering assault on Carrie's dignity, for speaking
in defense of Katie's rights, strikes me as what could be legitimately
called a vendetta (from the latin for 'vengeance').
My concerns with the insidiousness of your thought is a very
real-time issue. If tomorrow, the dishonesty and abuse were
history, I would merely be debating your ideas on a civil
playing field. I don't nurture or prosecute grievances from the
past. I address issues that are current, and present, today.
I have no desire that you be punished for anything at all, or
that you be marked with a lasting scourge for past excesses.
I don't seek to intervene in your ethical pursuit of your beliefs,
or to change your opinions.
BUT.. where you argue that
1) you are 'empowered' to behave unethically toward others here,
in order to pursue or enforce a "higher" defense or imposition of
"common ethical standards" that you alone determine and prosecute
or that
2) you have determined tolerance and forgiveness to be "inherently
unethical" elements of an unmoderated list, because it "tacitly" or
codependently endorses opinions that *you* deem "unethically
intolerant" of your religious beliefs, or personally offensive to you ..
then I will answer that you are promoting a ideology that *directly
opposes* the practical application of the Course's thought system,
in order to promote and justify *your* own delight in withering
assault on targets that violate *your* imposed values and opinions.
In short, I see you as a real-time opportunist who has no interest
in the civil, tolerant or functional pursuit of diverse opinions on
this list -- because you delight in chaos, constant attention, finding
and defeating foes, and the manipulation of fact and opinion to
support your whims.
> You might speak for the
> old, highly dysfuctional TRCM of systemic abuse, but you and I know
> that the old, TRCM was an outlaw, outcast, rogue miracle list that was
> and still is a great embarrassment to the Course community.
There is an 'old list' that I recall, with around 30 active members,
frequent new and old lurkers who would drop in somewhat
regularly, and robust discussion of this Course. The greatest
obstacle to peaceful and respectful discussion across those years
was the copyright controversy, which has been resolved and
for the most part laid to rest.
And there is the present list, with fewer than a dozen regulars,
the conspicuous absence of oldtimers willing to drop in, and
an apparent refusal of new lurkers to subject themselves to
a climate of full-name smears, lynch parties, and the Lopez-led
*ridicule* of Course-based concepts of forgiveness and tolerance
as inherently "unethical" (lol) and "unworkable" in an unmoderated
world.
> Well see if Maz and I have some better ideas for the future of TRCM
> than you and Tom Fox
If your vigilante moderation of a list were what TRCM wanted or
needed, John, the private list that you created would be thriving.
Yes?
This list has survived every troll ever thrown at it, and will very
easily outlast every determined detractor of the Course or this list,
because of the irrepressible nature and value of ACIM. You can
continue to try to sell your services as ninja terminator.. to gather
a gentle quorum who look to you for protection from future Katie's,
or as fearless mouthpiece for what they fantasize saying, themselves..
or who simply like you, trust you, or 'feel your pain.'
I will continue to flag how and why I think your medicine is clearly
'killing the patient,' here.
I think your behavior and aggressiveness is suppressing what could
overnight become a robust list, again, were you to lose your all-
important endorsements and tacit support. (Or to simply get a job.;)
I think you have dishonestly won the trust of those who believe
your words are credible and sensible, and I'll continue to explain
how and why I think that's so.
I just won't make an avocation of it, as you do from your side,
John. ;)
This is not my idea of a good time.
~ Lee
happyslave
wish to point you in the right direction so that you can see the
insanity of your own projections the way most everyone here can.
Please get help.
H
maz
>
> Tom wrote:
> > Carrie " And, as I have explained before, but maybe you forgot, it
> > wasn't course students want to make me puke, it was "if I hear the
> > term course student again (as it is used here and I think you know
> > what I mean) I'll puke". At least that's how I remember it, and it's
> > not at all the same as you and others have turned it into. . . . "
> >
> >
> > ~ Don't sweat it. I've met more than one Course student that made me
> > want to puke. Egad! More than one such puke-provokers post here
> > regularly.
>
> I know
>
> People make what they want from something anyway.
Still teaching the laws of chaos?
> I don't think the label "course student" is in line with the course,
> anyway. The idea we are all one, in Truth.
Level confusion.
namazté
Carmen
wrote:
Laughter, laughter everywhere.
Thank you (both)!
lolololololol
Carmen
maz
<kena...@webtv.net> schreef in bericht
news:23063-44E...@storefull-3117.bay.webtv.net...
Group: talk.religion.course-miracle Date: Tue, Aug 15, 2006, 2:29pm
(EDT+6) From: m...@NoSpamsolcon.nl (maz)
Tom:
~ Don't hold back, John. Go for it!!!!
========
Maz:
>>>Go for what? John shows he is a gentleman in recognizing ~Deborah's
appology, although it was a bit vague.
namazté
===============
~~Good on you Maz. A call for peace
sometimes sounds like a tiny voice crying
in the wilderness, but often it is joined
with others and we know that where two
or more are gathered in Christ, there
he will also. Be peace Maz and
know that you are seen/heard and others
join with you.
*
Kay
============================
thank you my fay Kay, it means a lot.
Peace be, maz
@}-->---->---------------
Pieter
"maz" <m...@NoSpamsolcon.nl> schreef in bericht
news:vf-dnbkXJqi...@fiberworld.nl...
>
> "Pieter" <...
>>
>> "maz" <m...@NoSpamsolcon.nl> schreef in bericht
>> news:ZbadnQ5JsJRLiXzZ...@fiberworld.nl...
>>
>>> I am pointing out facts.
>>
>> What about this:
>> "It is always an interpretation that gives rise to
>> negative emotions, regardless of their seeming
>> justification by what *appears* as facts."
>>
>
> Who makes you judge of whether I post simple
> disclaimers wrt disruptive, plotting posters
> with negative emotions, Pieter?
> You have no right to do that.
You would not post "disclaimers"
if you had no negative emotions
towards Carrie because of her behavior.
> If you want to state that this particular
> poster has not factually plotted and schemed
> in private to harm Course students and lists,
> than say so. By confusing the levels,
> as in "nothing unreal exists" to this unfortunate
> social problem, no one is served, imho.
Turn to spirit, and the problem is solved.
Our ACIM really is a very good guide.
>>> I am sad that this had to happen.
>>
>> Sad that you had to do the dirty job?
>
> Pieter, what dirty job?
>
> So you are saying, alerting the public of certain
> posters disruptive, unethical secret plotting and
> scheming against Course students and lists is
> a dirty job?
"When you react AT ALL to errors, you are NOT LISTENING TO THE HOLY SPIRIT.
He has merely disregarded them, and if you ATTEND to them, you are NOT
HEARING HIM. If you do not hear HIM, you are listening to YOUR ego, and
making as little sense as the brother whose errors you perceive. This CANNOT
be correction. But it is more than merely lack of correction for him. It is
the GIVING UP of correction in YOURSELF." (T-9.III.4 in Urtext version.)
Wow! What does that say about
> you, stating I had to do a dirty job on trc-m?
>
>> Imo you are sad because
>> you somehow know that
>> you are mistaken that
>> "this had to happen."
>
> Come on Pieter, now I am responsible
> for Carrie's dirty jobs, and am mistaken
> that these were happening and can only
> be responded to with simple disclaimers
> to alert the public with showing simple evidence?
> Think again.
Maz, please read carefully the above quote.
>>> Believe me. You can make a hell of a difference,
>>> convincing the rest of us that you want to do better. But that's
>>> entirely up to you.
>>
>> Maybe you think this is the Holy Spirit
>> speaking through you, while it could be
>> sheer arrogance, and *usurping* the
>> Holy Spirit's function.
>
> You know what, Pieter? You have no right to
> judge from where my words are coming, or
> even wonder out loud about your subtle statement
> that I write from sheer arrogancem usurping the
> Holy Spirit's function. Anybody ever mentioned
> "weasel" to you? Or the word "spiritual extremist"?
>
>
>>> Should I exclude you from my evening and morning prayers? Really?
>>
>> Do you think our Heavenly Father
>> must be persuaded to give the best
>> to the one's you are praying for?
>
> More wondering out loud, Pieter.
> No I do not think that way.
That's a relief.
> Did anyone ever mention the word "nutcase"
> in your circles?
>
>> So that Carrie's wellbeing depends
>> on *your* praying for here?
>
> Or the word "imbecile"?
>
> namazté
J
Well, Lee, I think this was more than appropriate response to people at
the time running a hate campaign where the you and Maltman were clearly
dishonestly painting me as a potential criminal and using exploiting
ethnic sterotypes of Hispanics as criminals to further that campaign.
You have no moral standing here, except in your hysterical and
self-inflated self image. You clearly feel you and your friends have
license to smear me and I don't have a right to respond.
>
> > I think she was used and manipulated by
> > some long time resident thugs like you, Flynn, who used ~Deborah as a
> > wedge to attack me and who thinks there is nothing unethical in
> > alluding I'm violent criminal.
> >
> > As such I will consider the best approach to seek redress. My purpose
> > has never to harm anyone but only to be treated fairly.
> >
> > On the other hand, I suggest an admitted criminal
>
> Only in Lopez-land does "an admitted criminal" not commonly
> refer to one who admits having been convicted of a crime.
>
> By your yellowish definition, anyone who admits to having
> violated drug statutes at any time in their lives (or even
> local statutes), is an "admitted criminal." lol
>
> And I suppose you'll claim that never in your life have
> you violated federal statutes against non-violent crimes.
> Well bully for you, I say. A mind-altering substance along
> the way might have spared us all a lot of grief. ;)
A criminal is someone who commits criminal acts. You admit to
committing criminal acts by your apparently heavy involvment in what
you describe as personal use of cocaine.
What you mean, Flynn is you are not a covicted criminal. And I never
claimed you said you were a convicted criminal.
>
> > like yourself, cease
> > your vendetta to paint me as a violent, potential criminal. Because
> > its clear to me, after this episode that you and Fox are nothing but
> > unprincipled newsgroup thugs. You don't own this newsgroup, Flynn. Nor
> > do you speak for this newsgroup.
>
> I've only ever claimed to speak for myself.
That's not true, Flynn you often posture as though you speak for this
newsgroup.
>
> > Its clear enough I have as much
> > support here as you, its just my support
> > is no where near as ruthless as your supporters.
>
> I think you mean to say, as your assembled detractors.
Well, Flynn you can call them what you wish.
>
> I would just as soon that mine were the lone voice opposing
> your methods, tactics and ideology, to be perfectly honest.
I suggest what you prefer is to be the lone voice selectively
commenting on methods, tactics and ideology so you can sway and
influence newgroup discourse.
You dislike me because I am a critic of TRCM for using A Course in
Miracles to perpetuate a newsgroup system of systemic, codependent
abuse. Simply, you fully and irrationally support this system even
against all evidence that the 9 year history of TRCM dysfuction has be
a great embarrasement to the course community and has largely
discredited A Course in Miracles.
>
> But it suits your purpose to claim a 'conspiratorial vendetta,'
> rather than acknowledging a simple collective rejection of your
> behavior, premises and assumptions (after four solid years of
> your antics), by those who are speaking out at once.
Well, Flynn. There is no collective rejection of my behavior. For the
most part, this criticism has been largely partisan. That's your self
inflation and complete arrogance showing, and certainly a denial that
your behavior in this affair has been often and justifiable criticized.
>
> > In fact, they are largely gentle, without guile
> > and not ruthless at all. Which if anyone thinks about it --says it
> > all.
>
> IMO, they want very badly to believe the best about you, John.
> They are, as you say, a guileless group. And you are a very
> persuasive wordsmith, talented prosecutor, credible victim,
> and deceitful propagandist. That's my opinion and explanation.
> Only the very gentlest still believe you, from what I can see.
Well, Lee what I think is you and your friend which have enjoyed the
fun and benifits of promoting A Course in Miracles as justification for
systemic abuse through co-depency cannot have me here criticizing your
system which obviously welcomes every obcenely abusive troll and wacko,
and off the wall cult as part of course study.
Moreover, your hysterical descriptions of me as somehow posting beyond
the generally accepted standards for an open newsnet forum is bogus. I
rarely use gratitious obscenities and when I do use one it is in
asteriks. Hardly the practice of a "newsgroup thug." Moreover, I
challenge to show any time when I posted outside accepted standards
when someone was not actively attacking me.
What you call, attack here is simply me too often presenting the better
argument.
>
> > If you wish to continue this vendetta, Flynn --the gloves are off and
> > you will be responded to in kind, as a thug.
>
> vendetta: noun
>
> 1. prolonged feud: a prolonged bitter feud or quarrel
> 2. blood feud between families
>
> [Mid-19th century. Via Italian < Latin vindicta "vengeance"]
>
> Let me explain what a vendetta is, imo. A vendetta is an extended
> refusal to see another free from grievances of the past. A lengthy
> desire or attempt to exact vengeance.
As an example, your three
> year campaign of withering assault on Carrie's dignity, for speaking
> in defense of Katie's rights, strikes me as what could be legitimately
> called a vendetta (from the latin for 'vengeance').
Well, Flynn again your hysteria and self-inflation get the better of
you, and you digress quickly into yellow journalism and dishonest
rhetoric.
You are dishonestly singling me out as a scape goat because as an
extremists, you mistake the simple social problem of MANY people
dealing with an obnoxious, unpleasant poster with some major spiritual
crisis, and my spiritual error in particular.
Moreover, I have heard no one but you agree with Carolyn Smith, that
she was here speaking in "defense" of Dean's right to speak. If you
made this statement to the entire newsgroup most poster would think you
were insane.
Moreover it is a completely dishonest and a mercenary defense. There is
no record of you at that time of this convienent belief that Carrie was
simply here defending Dean. And most posters pretty much know Carolyn
Smith and Katie Dean were here to troll and disrupt this newsgroup.
>
> My concerns with the insidiousness of your thought is a very
> real-time issue.
Well Lee, you continue to regress into hysterics. My thoughts are not
insidious. What you really express is your childish, emotional hyperbol
is that I disagree with you, and you are confounded in how to deal with
my rational arguments.
If tomorrow, the dishonesty and abuse were
> history,
What dishonesty and abuse? Again you are hysterical. Again there is
nothing I post outside accepted protocol. While its clear enough you
give you and your friends a pass for dishonestly painting me as a
potential criminal. I think you are highly dyfuctional Lee. You are in
deep denial about your own forgiveness issues when forgiveness is
always on your lips.
I would merely be debating your ideas on a civil
> playing field. I don't nurture or prosecute grievances from the
> past. I address issues that are current, and present, today.
Right. Lee. Can you be this dumb and dishonest. Anyone can see you are
nursing a long time grievance against me and constantly allude to my
past. Get real, Lee.
>
> I have no desire that you be punished for anything at all, or
> that you be marked with a lasting scourge for past excesses.
> I don't seek to intervene in your ethical pursuit of your beliefs,
> or to change your opinions.
Well, Lee --thanks, I guess. Let's say dysfuctional newsgroup idiots
like you and Tom Fox are hardly capable of marking me with a scourge,
though apparently this doesn't keep you from dishonestly marking me.
The fact is Flynn - funny thing --my detractors all come with loaded
with so much sordid history and baggage its a wonder they presume to
criticize anyone.
After all, you are a former cocaine abuser and admitted criminal. Tom
Fox is certifiable nutcase posting my mother's death notice; Doug
Thompson has a whole history of engaging in internet wars and blasting
opponents. Carolyn Smith--hell give me break. And Ellen --gee, a
certifiable cultie who joined a clearly wacko cult
Yeah, Lee --its amazing you idiots presume to "scourge" me. What you do
is work together to scourge your mutual enemies. And clearly none you
idiots have any much of any ethical belief. You idiots have always
operated as codependent thugs.
-snip garbage__
> > You might speak for the
> > old, highly dysfuctional TRCM of systemic abuse, but you and I know
> > that the old, TRCM was an outlaw, outcast, rogue miracle list that was
> > and still is a great embarrassment to the Course community.
>
> There is an 'old list' that I recall, with around 30 active members,
> frequent new and old lurkers who would drop in somewhat
> regularly, and robust discussion of this Course. The greatest
> obstacle to peaceful and respectful discussion across those years
> was the copyright controversy, which has been resolved and
> for the most part laid to rest.
LOL .More apolgies for you clearly immersing A Course in MIracles in
continuing systemic abuse and co-dependency. Only an dishonest idiot,
totally outside the mainstream of course discussion would attempt to
paint nearly 9 years of constant, obscene fights and wars on TRCM as a
place for robust Course discussion. This place has alway been very much
a rouge, outlaw group proudly operating outside the boundaries and
constraints of the course community. And is clearly an embarrasement to
the course community.
Moreover, in your rush to dishonesty you somehow miss the nearly 7 or
so years of battle between TRCM and the Eots cults and the 3 years of
the Katie Dean trash the list road show.
_snip the garbage --
>
> And there is the present list, with fewer than a dozen regulars,
> the conspicuous absence of oldtimers willing to drop in,
Really Lee? And why is that? As most of us see it, posters wish nothing
to do with Carrie Smith and her smear and trash game.
and
> an apparent refusal of new lurkers to subject themselves to
> a climate of full-name smears, lynch parties,
and the Lopez-led
> *ridicule* of Course-based concepts of forgiveness and tolerance
> as inherently "unethical" (lol) and "unworkable" in an unmoderated
> world.
Well, Lee you are clearly hysterical and lying. I don't and never have
ridiculed Course concepts. I have never aruged that course concepts of
forgiveness and tolerance are inherently unethical or unworkable in an
unmoderated world.
This is a willfull and completly dishonest re-statement of my position,
because you are a very dishonest and very unskilled debator.
_snip garbage__
>
> This list has survived every troll ever thrown at it, and will very
> easily outlast every determined detractor of the Course or this list,
> because of the irrepressible nature and value of ACIM. You can
> continue to try to sell your services as ninja terminator.. to gather
> a gentle quorum who look to you for protection from future Katie's,
> or as fearless mouthpiece for what they fantasize saying, themselves..
> or who simply like you, trust you, or 'feel your pain.'
Well Lee, as far as I can see --you are a dishonest proponent of a
highly dyfuctional newsgroup which is widely viewed as an inverting
course principles. Intead of fixing the problem of systemic abuse and
codependency migrating to course study, you find a way to perpetuate
and enjoy the fruits of abuse and chronic dysfuction --which mainly
translate to you posturing as a newgroup saint in the midst of this
chronic dysfuction.
In other words, Lee you perpetuate a continuing embarrasment to the
course community for your own enjoyment and self-inflation.
Now you and your friends can try all your dirty tricks to silence my
continuing criticism of this corrupt system, but you can't debate me at
the level of ideas. And the clarity of ideas will sooner or later
prevail over persons and cliques.
Carrie
And I am still wrong and you are still right
Carrie
happyslave wrote:
> I have no desire to attemp to discuss anything with you John. I just
> wish to point you in the right direction so that you can see the
> insanity of your own projections the way most everyone here can.
>
> Please get help.
>
> H
>
>
Could be that's why he's on this newsgroup
Who can say?
realizi...@hotmail.com
Doc Theo wrote:
> As far as I can see, ~Deborah is the only one of the handful of poster
> attempting to paint me as violent criminal who understands that this
> was wrong. I also don't thiink ~Deborah is a racist, though she made a
> some long time resident thugs like you, Flynn, who used ~Deborah as a
> wedge to attack me and who thinks there is nothing unethical in
> alluding I'm violent criminal.
Hi John,
Maz suggests in a following post to this one, that this is you
accepting the apology I gave you.
I would like confirmation from you that you are in fact saying you have
accepted my sincere apology.
A "yes" or "no" will be clear for me.
Thanks.
~Deborah
Sniper
Pieter
"maz" <m...@NoSpamsolcon.nl> schreef in bericht
>
> "Pieter" <hrdo...@zonnet.nl>...
>>
>> "J" <Jl2...@netzero.com> schreef in bericht
>> news:1155596292.2...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Pieter wrote:
>>>> "J" <Jl2...@netzero.com> schreef in bericht
>>>> news:1155494339....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com..
>>>>
>>>> > . . . show where I
>>>> > have ever targeted or attacked anyone who wasn't attacking me.
>>>>
>>>> What about the Golden Rule?
>>>
>>> What about the Golden Rule, Pieter? Are you saying the Golden rule is
>>> an operative rule on TRCM?
>>
>> You justify your behavior because of "others"?
>> Others violating a Rule gives you the "right"
>> to do is as well?
>
> Hi Pieter, did it ever occur to you that John is the very last
> person on this newsgroup who would NOT appreciate
> honest, straight forward and grounded criticism,
> applying the golden rule?
It is very human to see the speck
in one's brother's eye and being
very bothered about it, while having,
imperceptibly, a log in one's own eye;
- a situation which looks quite
ridiculous to outsiders.
> And did it ever occur to you that John took on a task
> to confront the most despicable behavior on the
> very appropriate level, and introduced very effective
> measures to promote a more civil and balanced
> discussion list?
With the Course in your hands
you deem it justified to see evil
*outside* yourself, and then have
the duty to expose this evil outside
yourself? Don't you recognize this
mechanism which is described in ACIM?
>> Others are in hell,
>> so you have the "right" to be there too?
>
> Come on, what is this "others"versus "john" about?
Ask John.
Btw this is a post to John at all.
> What happened to your Holy Son of God as One?
That is just what I want
to make clear to John.
>> Why blaming others what you do as well?
>
> Again, John is not confused about the levels of discourse.
> On the other hand, you really seem to be failing in
> this regard, imho.
It makes no sense to use
"levels of discourse" as
a red herring for fighting
the evil in others, instead of
in one's own mind.
>> Your justification would be "*they* started it, not me"?
>>
>
> That's plain stupid. John, as anyone else, does not need to justify
> civil and responsible confrontation of anti-course
> and anti-christ prpaganda in the name of ACIM.
You are right: John is a paragon of
civil and responsible "confrontation"-
discourse here in this ng. :-(
>>>> > I had to accept Mike Bysouth's abuse.
>>>>
>>>> Imo you forgot to laugh at
>>>> his silly, childish teasing.
>>>> (Yes: he even used adult words.)
>>>> I was quite astonished that
>>>> you did not see through it.
>>>> One can say: he misused
>>>> your not seeing through it.
>>>
>>> You know something, Pieter. I resent your dismissing Mike Bysouth
>>> request for people to sexually harrass my mother as silly, childish
>>> teasing.
>>
>> I said: he *misused* it;
>> it has been terribly gotten out of hand.
>
> Childish teasing is a friendly term for anti-christ,
> anti-course trashing, slander and defamation games.
Yes Maz, *your brother's* is the evil log,
and you only have a minor speck in your eye. :-(
> Do you all want us to standby and watch how your
> mother should be harrassed, and say, Pieter
> can't you stand a bit of childish teasing?
Maz, I said: "he *misused* it;
it has been terribly gotten out of hand."
Which means that I *reject* it.
Why do you overlook this?
practice
> the Course. your mother is not a victim!
> That's the golden rule applied, by the way,
> if you want the treatment that you dish out, that is.
>
> Jesus!
>
> namazté
>
>
>>> Actually its this is pretty much the same type of mis-use of course
>>> teachings which lead to Bill Waggnor being told by some around here he
>>> was somehow responsible for his daughters tragedy.
>>>
>>> You know what, Pieter. If you can't respect my mother or my feelings
>>> toward my mother despite being advised how I feel, if you think posting
>>> a woman phone number to sexually harass her is childish teashing ---I
>>> politely ask you stop posting to me. We are are so far apart in
>>> thinking that we have nothing to talk about.
>>
>> You seem to think that in any way
>> I support Mike's misuse. I do not.
>> I respect you *100%*, without
>> expecting, let alone demanding,
>> the same of you towards me.
>>
>
>
Lee
It's always instructive to see what you prefer not be read.
Thanks for your response, otherwise
~ Lee
= unsnipped 'garbage' =
I have no desire that you be punished for anything at all, or
that you be marked with a lasting scourge for past excesses.
I don't seek to intervene in your ethical pursuit of your beliefs,
or to change your opinions.
BUT.. where you argue that
1) you are 'empowered' to behave unethically toward others here,
in order to pursue or enforce a "higher" defense or imposition of
"common ethical standards" that you alone determine and prosecute
or that
2) you have determined tolerance and forgiveness to be "inherently
unethical" elements of an unmoderated list, because it "tacitly" or
codependently endorses opinions that you deem "unethically
intolerant" of your religious beliefs, or personally offensive to you ..
then I will answer that you are promoting a ideology that *directly
opposes* the practical application of the Course's thought system,
in order to promote and justify your own delight in withering
assault on targets that violate your imposed values and opinions.
In short, I see you as a real-time opportunist who has no interest
in the civil, tolerant or functional pursuit of diverse opinions on
this list -- because you delight in chaos, constant attention, finding
and defeating foes, and the manipulation of fact and opinion to
support your whims.
=====
Sniper
[snip]
> You dislike me because I am a critic of TRCM for using A Course in
> Miracles to perpetuate a newsgroup system of systemic, codependent
> abuse. Simply, you fully and irrationally support this system even
> against all evidence that the 9 year history of TRCM dysfuction has be
> a great embarrasement to the course community and has largely
> discredited A Course in Miracles.
I think everything that has been said about you
regarding your ethnicity, and, implied criminal
past, was unfortunate, intentional or not. I've
got to ask you, however, to consider if calling
Lee a "cocaine cowboy", Carrie a "crack whore",
or everybody associated with EOTS as people who
"want to buttfuck Jesus", is acceptable, civil,
or something you think is not an embarrassment?
Here's the thing. This shit can go on for years
without anything changing. At some point, we're
acting insanely if we just don't let it go. You
made your point, Lee's made his point, Carrie's
made her point, for fuck's sake, everybody here
has made their point! It's time to let this go!
Everybody here, myself included who perpetuated
this garbage is culpable. But that's all in the
past, if that's where we choose to leave it. To
continue banging our heads against the wall, to
no avail, is the sure sign of insanity. STOP!!!
Tom
~ Nice subject line.
~ Got my attention.
;o)
maz
Its not going to happen as long as
Jesus is boss over time and Atonement, John.
namazté
Jeanette
"~ Where did you get your formal college education, John? What degrees
did you earn, and from what schools? "
What difference does it make.
If he had no formal education, you'd dig up some reason to burn him at
the stake.
As if formal education has anything to do with being receptive to God's
Word.
You threw your education in the trash, along with your license to
practice law, if anyone is to be challenged, as to their lack of
discretion, it is you.
Jeanette
*****
Tom wrote:
> John "Get an education, Lee. If you don't have a basic, formal college
> education, why not let me know? I won't waste my time assuming you
> have an education."
>
>
> ~ Where did you get your formal college education, John? What degrees
> did you earn, and from what schools?
maz
"Sniper" <sni...@gotcha.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:2rydnTwvqvb21X_Z...@adelphia.com...