A Man of Truth and the Trickster (Was: Why}
Raymond Karczewski
A Man of Truth and the Trickster (Was: Why}
>cf...@mudbottom.org (The Talking Catfish) wrote:
>The time has come to reveal what is actually taking place within these
>so-called spiritual newsgroups on the internet. What we have been
>witnessing in various ways is the practice of an age-old form of
>self-deception sometimes known as psychological reversal. In the
>marketing world, it is known as creating a need and then filling it
>(for a price of course). This is analogous to the seemingly
>unintentional pollution of a river and then selling pure water from
>it's source, the underground aquifer.
Pay close attention to the words of this post. If you don't, your
mind will be controlled. If this post is read with "awareness"
(paying attention), the light of truth will set you free from clever
mind controllers such as the anonymous self-admitted "trickster" of
this article. This post is damage control designed to misdirect
attention away from the deceivers who prowl and prey upon others
within these newsgroups.
>The naive readers of these forums need to be very skeptical of what they
>read and how they interpret it. Many readers come to these supposedly
>spiritual newsgroups seeking something to believe in, or to find validation
>to their own beliefs. The inherent presupposition is the lack of something
>spiritual within their own lives, so they come looking for it here.
In my posts, one does not have to go far to see that my focus is
upon exposing mind control by clever people, and how civilized man has
been enslaved by it, thus making life on earth a man-made "Hell."
>This is very dangerous because the internet is filled with tricksters
>who are all too ready and willing to fill this need at the seekers' expense
>in order to establish credibility for themselves. This is accomplished
>by repeated subtle phrases intended to create self-doubt in the minds of
>others. The deception takes the form of psychological reversal in the
>suggestion that it is the one who questions their authority who is employing
>deceptive techniques, when they are really actually creating the deception
>themselves. This can be observed by witnessing the activities of anti-cult
>cults and those who wage a battle against so-called "mind control" by using
>"mind-control" techniques themselves. In other words, they create the
>situations within which "mind-control" takes place, when there was no
>such situation to begin with. They are really victims of their own
>practice of "mind-control". Unfortunately, they do succeed to some
>extent to entice others to support them, at least for the time being.
The nature of mind control is deceptive influence. The nature of
Truth is "What IS." To be at one with Truth is to understand "What
Is." When one speaks from understanding, one's words carry with them
the ring of truth. Nothing is more persuasive than the truth, for all
else is illusion that falls away when mirrored by truth. It is the
image of truth that requires techniques. Techniques are the
"technical methodologies" which lead an ignorant mind off the straight
and narrow and onto the wide path of destruction.
>Raymond Karczewski himself unwittingly reveals his own technique in
>writing, "When one can look at what you have written above and make
>sense of it, they will have been made to doubt their very core of
>[their] intelligence. Their grounding in truth, will have been disrupted."
>(article <55ta5e$7...@news.cdsnet.net>, Thu, 07 Nov. 1996)
Yes, indeed, I did in fact reveal the essence of mind control in
the above paragraph; but it is Catfish who attributed the misdirection
of judgment by assigning it as a technique of mine. I have no
techniques; for I speak and write from understanding, not technical
expertise. Pay careful attention to Catfish in this post and determine
whether he/she is technical or wholistic in his/her grasp of
communication.
>In other words, readers should be warned that there are those who are
>ready, willing and able to destroy your spirit to get you to support
>their authority which they are making the effort to establish.
>Long time readers of these forums are painfully aware of the years of
>psychological terrorism inflicted upon one of the most innocent and
>persistent contributors to alt.meditation by those who seek to destroy
>her spirit. In doing so, they have exposed her inner light, which
>reveals their own treachery in the process. In the end, psychological
>reversal is self-defeating, but for the time being it is an extremely
>effective tool of propaganda.
It is obvious to me that Catfish is referring to Kathy, the
Red-Headed Goddess. I stand by every word that I have written. So will
Kathy, so will Catfish. That is as it should be and will be.
>Readers should always question the authority of those who make statements
>which would cause one to doubt their own inner sense of self worth.
>This sense of worth, although arbitrary and sometimes self-deceptive
>in itself, is something which everyone, regardless of their beliefs, shares.
>Regardless of one's culture, history, rituals, inherited values, or
>shared beliefs; deep inside we all want and need the same things.
Read carefully the above paragraph over and over until you see
the attempt to set up a bassackward momentum in defense of "one's
arbitrary and sometimes self-deceptive self image." This is what a
mind controller can do with duality. What Catfish is telling you is
that bad is good and good is bad. Only one proficient in such double
think could carry that one off. The casual reader will never discern
that energy in my writings, as I do not express myself in dualistic
terms. I speak and write directly of my observations of "What Is" in
the moment. It is called mirroring. There is no judgment attached to
it. It is that energy that is responsible for the upsetting of
dualistic minds.
>Even those who play the deceptive games are doing it because of the
>common need to feel accepted by their peers, to seek agreement or
>to validate their position. We all need food, water, shelter, and
>healthy conditions in which to live, regardless of the country or
>immediate environment. Likewise, we all need love, attention and affection
>even though our personal values may differ. In a very real sense, we
>are of one mind and taste. Unfortunately, there are many who seek to
>create conflict and division among us to suit their own selfish motives
>by exaggerating our differences rather than our commonality.
The bottom line found in the essence of all of my posts directed
toward spiritual seekers is that you "can't get there from here."
Technical knowlege will not bring one to spiritual atonement. It is
through insight that dualistic thought comes to an end and
nondualistic truth reveals itself. In other words, the image must
come to an end for the spirit to be. That is the rebirth process
spoken of by Jesus. When that occurs, one is liberated from the
travails of dualistic "becoming" and is living life in the vast
infiniteness of "being." One can never arrive at that state of being
through technical methodologies, but rather through simple, honest,
clear resonance with Truth.
>So, let me offer this suggestion to newcomers of the internet as well as
>to those who have been reading and contributing for many years: No one
>really knows you more than you know yourself, even though you might not
>know yourself all that well. Always question those who imply that they
>know something about you that you yourself do not know. There is no
>harm that can come from questioning any authority, including your own,
>simply because the emptiness of symbolism cannot harm empty symbolism.
Now readers, Catfish is pandering to your egos. Admit it, what
do you know about yourself? If you understood yourself, you would not
be caught by all the nonsense that goes on in the name of
spirituality, would you? One can read all that I have written and
never come upon me telling another how they should live. If you see
the truth of what I say fine, if not, then do your thing. A life of
truth requires of one the utmost of responsibility. Responsibility
leads to at-one-ness, the Truth; irresponsibility leads to the duality
of codependence.
>Be aware of your own self deception, and you will be aware of the deception
>of others who would take you for a ride in their own delusion. If you
>follow others, you will be selling yourself short and trading your own
>being for the unsatisfactory promises made by others. Always be skeptical;
>question yourself as well as others. This is the only way to discern the
>truth or falseness of any given situation, and only you, yourself can
>determine that. No one else can do it for you, even if they pretend
>that they can. Finally, be very careful that you don't end up doing the
>same thing yourself, that is, deceiving yourself and others.
I wonder how many people caught the shift in the momentum in the
above paragraph. All was fine until the last sentence when Catfish
threw in a zinger to make you doubt yourself. That's a typical
attempt by a mind controller to deliver common sense advice already
known by you. Its ultimate effect, however, will be to cause self
doubt in a dualistic mind at the very end of a series of "leading" ego
gratifying images by the necessity to establish a link to the advice
giver as an outside authority who is looking out for your/his best
interests.
>The resulting consequences are nearly impossible to unravel and correct
>because lies are built upon lies. It isn't all that difficult from the
>start to be truthful, honest, and up-front about anything. Once the
>foundation for deception is laid, however, it is almost impossible to
>heal the wounds which are inflicted. All things are forgiven eventually,
>however, so it is simply a matter of not creating any more deception.
>Now, you may question what is written here, indeed by all means question
>it and the authority which makes it. I am a trickster myself, so I am
>quite aware of these techniques. However, as you can plainly see, I have
>no authority at all, because I only have a transient identity. I am not
>seeking approval or disapproval. I have no motive for writing this,
>except out of concern for your own well being. What you see as truth
>or falseness written here is your own interpretation and nothing more.
>Your own truth can stand on it's own, it cannot be destroyed by deception.
>In other words, be true to yourself, and all other truths will be revealed.
>Be true to yourself, and all the deceptive lies will be plainly revealed.
Catfish just deepened the trance when he told you "I AM A
TRICKSTER MYSELF, SO I AM QUITE AWARE OF THESE TECHNIQUES."
A trickster can only be so within the realm of duality. There are no
tricks to be played in the realm of truth. I understand the
Techniques, and I speak directly of them. Nothing tricky about that. A
trickster is one who gains power through the manipulations (tricks)
he/she can pull off on others. The eternal mirror of truth is always
operative when fools are indicted by their own words. Here is
evidence of the Trickster: Catfish says..... "I have no motive for
writing this, except out of concern for your own well being. What you
see as truth or falseness written here is your own interpretation and
nothing more. Your own truth can stand on it's own, it cannot be
destroyed by deception. In other words, be true to yourself, and all
other truths will be revealed. Be true to yourself, and all the
deceptive lies will be plainly revealed......" Catfish takes great
pains to avoid telling you that what he/she is speaking is his/her own
Truth. There is a misdirection toward placing importance on the
"others" truth. The "other" is the illusion based in a dualistic
divisive viewpoint. Such is the art of misdirection used
daily by expert mind controllers. How many reading this post would
have caught the subtleties had they not been pointed out? Civilized
people are trained to dullness so that they may be exploited by
intriguing minds. That is the hell of it, is it not?
>Why did I spend the time to write this, you ask? Simply out of love,
>that's all. As Swami Satchindanada so elequently once said:
Look out, here comes the icing on the cake. The use of someone
elses words to close warm and fuzzy, while your mind has just been
raped!
> Love is a sacred word.
>L Love is the name of God.
>T The entire universe is created
>W With Love,
>B By Love, and
>I In Love
> Love is the beginning,
>L Love is the continuation,
>A And Love is the end.
> Love for Love's sake is divine,
>I It is constructive,
>I It is beautiful
>I It brings peace,
>I It brings harmony,
>I It brings joy
>T To the Lover and to the Loved.
> But if Love is based on selfishness, egoism,
>T The very same Love brings distruction.
>P Peace and harmony is based in Love,
>A And used properly by a selfless mind,
>F For the benefit of all.
> Love knows no business,
>L Love knows no bargain,
>L Love never expects anything in return.
>L Love knows only giving, and giving, and giving,
>W Without even waiting for a "thank you".
>S Such a Love is the supreme One.
> Let that Love Supreme reign over the Whole Universe.
> Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti,
> Hariom...
>YYours truly,
> One who remains unknown, even to himself.
That's a very clever way of justifying one's chicanery, which
can only operate from within an atmosphere of secrecy. I post my name
to all that I write and take full responsibility for my words and
actions. What has been.amply demonstrated in this post by "Catfish"
is the cleverness of an intriguing mind that cannot expose itself to
the light of public scrutiny, for to do so would be to bring its
intrigue to an end.
Raymond Karczewski
Raymond Karczewski http://www.cdsnet.net/Business/Ark/
Raymond Karczewski
One wonders whether to respond to this out of sincere concern, or
whether it would be better to not write anything, since he will
see it as yet another opportunity to comment and continue to make
a fool of himself.
: Catfish just deepened the trance when he told you "I AM A
: TRICKSTER MYSELF, SO I AM QUITE AWARE OF THESE TECHNIQUES."
: A trickster can only be so within the realm of duality. There are no
: tricks to be played in the realm of truth. I understand the
: Techniques, and I speak directly of them. Nothing tricky about that.
Yes, so it is. You seem to believe that if you understand and speak
of anything, it is somhow not a part of you. Do you really think it
is someone else's problem and you have no part of it? If you are not
in the realm of duality, then how is it that you are not a part of
the duality of which you speak? You will not answer this question
directly because you cannot do so and maintain your position as
someone who is not a part of it. You have "painted yourself
into a corner" and you can't get out.
: A trickster is one who gains power through the manipulations (tricks)
: he/she can pull off on others. The eternal mirror of truth is always
: operative when fools are indicted by their own words.
Yes. You see this in others, but what many have been attempting to
point out to you (without insulting your intelligence) is that what
you are saying is your recognition of your own mind in the minds
of others. Read what you just wrote as if someone else was saying
this about Raymond Karczewski. It is a shame that you cannot see
yourself in your view of others. I cannot understand why you would
wish to be so isolated. I would think that it would cause you a
great deal of concern, disappointment and suffering. If not, then
you must not care about yourself or anyone else. I would prefer to
be wrong about this, yet it cannot be seen otherwise from your
position. I'd even guess that you don't understand what I'm
saying even though there are quite a few others that do. Perhaps
the reason you don't understand is because you would be admitting
that you are in error, and that would be a tremendous blow to your
own self image. Therefore you are left with the choice of further
isolating yourself from the situation which you place most others
within in your own mind, or you have to suffer the realization that
it is not at all the way you would like it to be. Either way you
suffer. What a pity.
Here is
: > One who remains unknown, even to himself.
: That's a very clever way of justifying one's chicanery, which
: can only operate from within an atmosphere of secrecy. I post my name
: to all that I write and take full responsibility for my words and
: actions. What has been.amply demonstrated in this post by "Catfish"
: is the cleverness of an intriguing mind that cannot expose itself to
: the light of public scrutiny, for to do so would be to bring its
: intrigue to an end.
You post your name and take responsibility for your words because you
have your own self image to promote. You do it to sell your books.
You are not doing this for others, you are doing it for yourself, right?
On the other hand, I am no one. I have no name. I have no identity.
There is no "I" that has anything to gain or lose. There is nothing
for me to promote. Therefore there is nothing you can say about me.
You are shadow boxing, sir. You cannot harm me because there is
nothing that can be harmed. You cannot help me because there is no one
to help. I can use whatever name I choose, including your own, simply
as a way to make this point obvious to you. I am not doing it to harm
your reputation, even though you obviously have a reputation which can
be harmed. My point is that you yourself are harming your own reputation
by continuing to write as if you are not a part of what you denounce in
others. You also manage to some extent to delude others, and that is your
responsibility as well. I certainly hope you know what you are doing,
because if by chance you are mistaken, it will be very difficult to
face those who have given you the authority without being worthy of it.
Suppose you said to the other Lemmings, "Leap into the sea, you will not
drown.", and they did, trusting in your wisdom, and drowned. You will have
taken responsibility for their lives, and if you realize that you mislead
them, you would probably not be able to live with yourself. What would
you do then, jump into the sea along with those whom you mislead?
This is my last attempt to make this clear to you Mr. Raymond Karczewski.
Indeed, what you do is your own responsibility. I myself, refuse to
trust in your wisdom and leap into the sea. What others do is also up
to them. I trust their innate wisdom, not yours. I also have the right
to voice this opinion, and nothing you can say will change that.
I sincerely wish you well, Mr. Leader of Lemmings. Please don't jump.
Raymond Karczewski
Re: A Man of Truth and the Trickster (Was: Why}
ark...@cdsnet.net (Raymond Karczewski) wrote:
game playing trickster
>One wonders whether to respond to this out of sincere concern, or
>whether it would be better to not write anything, since he will
>see it as yet another opportunity to comment and continue to make
>a fool of himself.
ray
>: Catfish just deepened the trance when he told you "I AM A
>: TRICKSTER MYSELF, SO I AM QUITE AWARE OF THESE TECHNIQUES."*
>: A trickster can only be so within the realm of duality. There are no
>: tricks to be played in the realm of truth. I understand the
>: Techniques, and I speak directly of them. Nothing tricky about that.
* Catfish is referring to himself
game playing trickster
>Yes, so it is. You seem to believe that if you understand and speak
>of anything, it is somhow not a part of you. Do you really think it
>is someone else's problem and you have no part of it? If you are not
>in the realm of duality, then how is it that you are not a part of
>the duality of which you speak? You will not answer this question
>directly because you cannot do so and maintain your position as
>someone who is not a part of it. You have "painted yourself
>into a corner" and you can't get out.
r
>: A trickster is one who gains power through the manipulations (tricks)
>: he/she can pull off on others. The eternal mirror of truth is always
>: operative when fools are indicted by their own words.
gpt
>Yes. You see this in others, but what many have been attempting to
>point out to you (without insulting your intelligence) is that what
>you are saying is your recognition of your own mind in the minds
>of others. Read what you just wrote as if someone else was saying
>this about Raymond Karczewski. It is a shame that you cannot see
>yourself in your view of others. I cannot understand why you would
>wish to be so isolated. I would think that it would cause you a
>great deal of concern, disappointment and suffering. If not, then
>you must not care about yourself or anyone else. I would prefer to
>be wrong about this, yet it cannot be seen otherwise from your
>position. I'd even guess that you don't understand what I'm
>saying even though there are quite a few others that do. Perhaps
>the reason you don't understand is because you would be admitting
>that you are in error, and that would be a tremendous blow to your
>own self image. Therefore you are left with the choice of further
>isolating yourself from the situation which you place most others
>within in your own mind, or you have to suffer the realization that
>it is not at all the way you would like it to be. Either way you
>suffer. What a pity.
>Here is
>: > One who remains unknown, even to himself.
r
>: That's a very clever way of justifying one's chicanery, which
>: can only operate from within an atmosphere of secrecy. I post my name
>: to all that I write and take full responsibility for my words and
>: actions. What has been.amply demonstrated in this post by "Catfish"
>: is the cleverness of an intriguing mind that cannot expose itself to
>: the light of public scrutiny, for to do so would be to bring its
>: intrigue to an end.
gpt
>You post your name and take responsibility for your words because you
>have your own self image to promote. You do it to sell your books.
>You are not doing this for others, you are doing it for yourself, right?
gpt
>On the other hand, I am no one. I have no name. I have no identity.
>There is no "I" that has anything to gain or lose. There is nothing
>for me to promote. Therefore there is nothing you can say about me.
>You are shadow boxing, sir. You cannot harm me because there is
>nothing that can be harmed. You cannot help me because there is no one
>to help. I can use whatever name I choose, including your own, simply
>as a way to make this point obvious to you. I am not doing it to harm
>your reputation, even though you obviously have a reputation which can
>be harmed. My point is that you yourself are harming your own reputation
>by continuing to write as if you are not a part of what you denounce in
>others. You also manage to some extent to delude others, and that is your
>responsibility as well. I certainly hope you know what you are doing,
>because if by chance you are mistaken, it will be very difficult to
>face those who have given you the authority without being worthy of it.
gpt
>Suppose you said to the other Lemmings, "Leap into the sea, you will not
>drown.", and they did, trusting in your wisdom, and drowned. You will have
>taken responsibility for their lives, and if you realize that you mislead
>them, you would probably not be able to live with yourself. What would
>you do then, jump into the sea along with those whom you mislead?
gpt
>This is my last attempt to make this clear to you Mr. Raymond Karczewski.
>Indeed, what you do is your own responsibility. I myself, refuse to
>trust in your wisdom and leap into the sea. What others do is also up
>to them. I trust their innate wisdom, not yours. I also have the right
>to voice this opinion, and nothing you can say will change that.
gpt
>I sincerely wish you well, Mr. Leader of Lemmings. Please don't jump.
r
The post toward which this response is being directed originated
on 11-15-96, at 11:53 PM, bearing my name, Raymond Karczewski. the
post was forged in my name...I did not author it. Clearly, thoughout
the forged post one will not find a trace of the identity of the game
playing author of this post. I attached the label of "game playing
trickster" to hold responsible some shadowy figure whose only purpose
is obfuscation.
One who refuses to take responsibility for his/her statements
deserves no serious response to them and therefore will get none.
I, Raymond Karczewski, have left the post intact for others to
see to what depths the professional confusers will go to stop someone
who brings the truth to the world of conditioned man.
The post to which I am responding is an example of the
BASSACKWARD realm that I repeatedly write about. It is an example of
stepping through the looking glass where up is down, down is up, right
is wrong, and wrong is right. That is the realm of Dualism, and
clever people proficient with twisting the meaning of dualistic words
can create any kind of a confused scenario they wish for the purpose
of creating confusion. This all happens at the letter of the word
level, the level of deception.
One thing that cannot be disguised however is the energy of the
spirit behind the word. That is where the buck stops and
responsibility begins. Clearly the shadowy author of the post, who
refuses to take responsibility for his words, prefers to lurk in the
darkness of secrecy, of intrigue, rather than stand in the clear light
of truth for all to see.
To those who have been following my writings on the net, expect to
see an increase of these kinds of posts in the future; for the mind
controlling "tricksters" who are able to play with your minds are
beginning to feel the heat of exposure to their chicanery.
George C. Lindauer
Raymond Karczewski (ark...@cdsnet.net) wrote:
: Re: A Man of Truth and the Trickster (Was: Why}
:
: ark...@cdsnet.net (Raymond Karczewski) wrote:
:
: game playing trickster
: >One wonders whether to respond to this out of sincere concern, or
: >whether it would be better to not write anything, since he will
: >see it as yet another opportunity to comment and continue to make
: >a fool of himself.
In other words, you are wondering what is better for everyone concerned
and making that as the basis for your goal-setting.
: ray
: >: Catfish just deepened the trance when he told you "I AM A
: >: TRICKSTER MYSELF, SO I AM QUITE AWARE OF THESE TECHNIQUES."*
: >: A trickster can only be so within the realm of duality. There are no
: >: tricks to be played in the realm of truth. I understand the
: >: Techniques, and I speak directly of them. Nothing tricky about that.
:o
* Catfish is referring to himself
UM- I hate to disillusion you but your words only make sense in terms
of some absolute truth... in other words you don't allow for the possibility
that different people could have a different take on the same words
and you think everyone must look at words in the same fashion. This
clearly isn't the case as you yourslef admit when you talk about
duality.
:
: game playing trickster
: >Yes, so it is. You seem to believe that if you understand and speak
: >of anything, it is somhow not a part of you. Do you really think it
: >is someone else's problem and you have no part of it? If you are not
: >in the realm of duality, then how is it that you are not a part of
: >the duality of which you speak? You will not answer this question
: >directly because you cannot do so and maintain your position as
: >someone who is not a part of it. You have "painted yourself
:o
I can twist words all day... make them seem to mean something they
didn't originally mean. That can be fun but it doesn't necessarily
teach you anything but that you can always twist things the way you
want them.
:
: r
: >: A trickster is one who gains power through the manipulations (tricks)
: >: he/she can pull off on others. The eternal mirror of truth is always
:o
>: operative when fools are indicted by their own words.
ok so say there is such a thing as an eternal mirror of truth. What
profit do I get out of looking at it, or even knowing of it?
:
: gpt
: >Yes. You see this in others, but what many have been attempting to
: >point out to you (without insulting your intelligence) is that what
: >you are saying is your recognition of your own mind in the minds
: >of others. Read what you just wrote as if someone else was saying
: >this about Raymond Karczewski. It is a shame that you cannot see
: >yourself in your view of others. I cannot understand why you would
: >wish to be so isolated. I would think that it would cause you a
: >great deal of concern, disappointment and suffering. If not, then
: >you must not care about yourself or anyone else. I would prefer to
: >be wrong about this, yet it cannot be seen otherwise from your
: >position. I'd even guess that you don't understand what I'm
: >saying even though there are quite a few others that do. Perhaps
: >the reason you don't understand is because you would be admitting
: >that you are in error, and that would be a tremendous blow to your
: >own self image. Therefore you are left with the choice of further
: >isolating yourself from the situation which you place most others
: >within in your own mind, or you have to suffer the realization that
: >it is not at all the way you would like it to be. Either way you
: >suffer. What a pity.
Can you see yourself in rays words the way you claim he should see himself
in yours? If not, you are a hypocrite too.
:
: >Here is
:
: >: > One who remains unknown, even to himself.
:
: r
: >: That's a very clever way of justifying one's chicanery, which
: >: can only operate from within an atmosphere of secrecy. I post my name
: >: to all that I write and take full responsibility for my words and
: >: actions. What has been.amply demonstrated in this post by "Catfish"
: >: is the cleverness of an intriguing mind that cannot expose itself to
: >: the light of public scrutiny, for to do so would be to bring its
: >: intrigue to an end.
:
: gpt
: >You post your name and take responsibility for your words because you
: >have your own self image to promote. You do it to sell your books.
:o
>You are not doing this for others, you are doing it for yourself, right?
What is all this arguing about the reasons for doing things? Again if you
aren't checking your OWN reasons as voraciously as you seem to be
checking those of others... you have a problem. I admit I don't like ray
much... but at least he sticks to his position. You seem to be just
dancing around trying to find fault with anything you can find fault with.
Over the long term I think ray will probably be better off.
:
: gpt
: >On the other hand, I am no one. I have no name. I have no identity.
: >There is no "I" that has anything to gain or lose. There is nothing
: >for me to promote. Therefore there is nothing you can say about me.
: >You are shadow boxing, sir. You cannot harm me because there is
: >nothing that can be harmed. You cannot help me because there is no one
: >to help. I can use whatever name I choose, including your own, simply
: >as a way to make this point obvious to you. I am not doing it to harm
: >your reputation, even though you obviously have a reputation which can
: >be harmed. My point is that you yourself are harming your own reputation
: >by continuing to write as if you are not a part of what you denounce in
: >others. You also manage to some extent to delude others, and that is your
: >responsibility as well. I certainly hope you know what you are doing,
: >because if by chance you are mistaken, it will be very difficult to
:o
>face those who have given you the authority without being worthy of it.
oh foo. A few minutes ago you were deriding ray because you say his motivation
was not as honorable as he says... that he in fact was putting himself on
the line for profit rather than for any other reason. But I can play
that game too... my preliminary analysis of you is that you are afraid
to put yourself on the line... so you sit in the shadows throwing
punches when people's backs are turned. Now... if you take exception
to that statement you will have proved what you said in the last
paragraph about having nothing to gain or lose was a lie. So I will
not respect you. If you DON'T take exception to that I'm going to go
on thinking that about you whether or not it is really true. And I
won't respect you anyway. So, what is your response to this situation?
:
: gpt
: >Suppose you said to the other Lemmings, "Leap into the sea, you will not
: >drown.", and they did, trusting in your wisdom, and drowned. You will have
: >taken responsibility for their lives, and if you realize that you mislead
: >them, you would probably not be able to live with yourself. What would
: >you do then, jump into the sea along with those whom you mislead?
What's the big deal? So a bunch of lemmings jump into the sea. You think
that has earth-shattering consequences? Why?
:
: gpt
: >This is my last attempt to make this clear to you Mr. Raymond Karczewski.
: >Indeed, what you do is your own responsibility. I myself, refuse to
: >trust in your wisdom and leap into the sea. What others do is also up
: >to them. I trust their innate wisdom, not yours. I also have the right
: >to voice this opinion, and nothing you can say will change that.
Drawing lines in the sand... not very wise. And isn't Mr.K another person?
Why do you go so far as to say that some people you trust but not Mr. K.?
Are you saying something about your own ability to judge situations,
implying that somehow your own ability to understand what is going on is
somehow better than Mr. K's? Tell me why you think so, pleas, oh
great leader, so that I may know to follow you rather than him or
someone else.
:
: gpt
: >I sincerely wish you well, Mr. Leader of Lemmings. Please don't jump.
:
: r
: The post toward which this response is being directed originated
: on 11-15-96, at 11:53 PM, bearing my name, Raymond Karczewski. the
: post was forged in my name...I did not author it. Clearly, thoughout
: the forged post one will not find a trace of the identity of the game
: playing author of this post. I attached the label of "game playing
: trickster" to hold responsible some shadowy figure whose only purpose
: is obfuscation.
:
: One who refuses to take responsibility for his/her statements
: deserves no serious response to them and therefore will get none.
:
: I, Raymond Karczewski, have left the post intact for others to
: see to what depths the professional confusers will go to stop someone
:o
who brings the truth to the world of conditioned man.
Ray, if you haven't learned yet that you can learn even from idiots like
that then keep on truckin, maybe that will cross your mind one day.
:
: The post to which I am responding is an example of the
: BASSACKWARD realm that I repeatedly write about. It is an example of
: stepping through the looking glass where up is down, down is up, right
: is wrong, and wrong is right. That is the realm of Dualism, and
: clever people proficient with twisting the meaning of dualistic words
: can create any kind of a confused scenario they wish for the purpose
: of creating confusion. This all happens at the letter of the word
:o level, the level of deception.
I agree ray, that post that I just commented to was written by an idiot who
probably didn't even understand what he was saying beyond that he was having
fun hacking you...
:
: One thing that cannot be disguised however is the energy of the
: spirit behind the word. That is where the buck stops and
: responsibility begins. Clearly the shadowy author of the post, who
: refuses to take responsibility for his words, prefers to lurk in the
: darkness of secrecy, of intrigue, rather than stand in the clear light
: of truth for all to see.
:
: To those who have been following my writings on the net, expect to
: see an increase of these kinds of posts in the future; for the mind
: controlling "tricksters" who are able to play with your minds are
: beginning to feel the heat of exposure to their chicanery.
: Raymond Karczewski
Gee sounds like the rest of the end-times games.
:
: Raymond Karczewski http://www.cdsnet.net/Business/Ark/
:
Trickster
George C. Lindauer wrote: (most deleted)
>oh foo. A few minutes ago you were deriding ray because you say his motivation
>was not as honorable as he says... that he in fact was putting himself on
>the line for profit rather than for any other reason. But I can play
>that game too... my preliminary analysis of you is that you are afraid
>to put yourself on the line... so you sit in the shadows throwing
>punches when people's backs are turned. Now... if you take exception
>to that statement you will have proved what you said in the last
>paragraph about having nothing to gain or lose was a lie. So I will
>not respect you. If you DON'T take exception to that I'm going to go
>on thinking that about you whether or not it is really true. And I
>won't respect you anyway. So, what is your response to this situation?
It's quite simple. You can think anything you want. I am not
expecting respect or agreement from you or anyone else.
It doesn't really matter what I say, what matters is what you
perceive. That is the whole point of my anonymity. It doesn't
matter *who* writes, it is what is written and how you interperet
it that is important. Whether my name was George or Frank, you
would still arrive at the same conclusions.
If your conclusion depends on who wrote what, and your projection
or judgement of the author, then do you really understand what
is written? Can you remove the author from the issue of discussion
and understand the issue, or does your understanding of the issue
depend on the motives and behavior of the author?
Now I'm saying that it is dangerous to believe what Raymond writes.
It is equally dangerous to believe what I, or anyone else has
written without finding out for yourself whether it it true.
So, how do you find out whether what is written is true or false?
Does it depend upon your judgement of who writes it, or is it
dependent upon yourself?
Ray would like you to believe that it depends on your acceptance
of his authority. I'm saying that it doesn't matter who "I" am.
You are free to draw your own conclusions and you are equally
free to state them. Can you state your understanding of what this
is about without judgement, either of yourself or someone else?
Remember, if your judgement is correct, then the one who is
judged must conform to that judgement. Are you willing to demand
that others conform to your judgement of them?
I believe that Raymond expects everyone to conform to his judgement
of them. On the other hand, I don't expect anyone to believe what I
say, they can decide for themselves. Which would you prefer?
I hope this is clear to you, because I don't intend to continue
stating the same thing over and over. Goodbye, and may you be
happy with your own conclusions.
George C. Lindauer
Trickster (tr...@confusion.com) wrote:
: George C. Lindauer wrote: (most deleted)
:
: It's quite simple. You can think anything you want. I am not
: expecting respect or agreement from you or anyone else.
pretty words. Did you mean them or did you mean the opposite of them?
:
: It doesn't really matter what I say, what matters is what you
: perceive. That is the whole point of my anonymity. It doesn't
: matter *who* writes, it is what is written and how you interperet
: it that is important. Whether my name was George or Frank, you
:o would still arrive at the same conclusions.
Yet... you deride ray rather than talking about his works.
:
: If your conclusion depends on who wrote what, and your projection
: or judgement of the author, then do you really understand what
: is written? Can you remove the author from the issue of discussion
: and understand the issue, or does your understanding of the issue
: depend on the motives and behavior of the author?
Well, does it?
:
: Now I'm saying that it is dangerous to believe what Raymond writes.
: It is equally dangerous to believe what I, or anyone else has
: written without finding out for yourself whether it it true.
: So, how do you find out whether what is written is true or false?
: Does it depend upon your judgement of who writes it, or is it
: dependent upon yourself?
:
That is a very nice thing to say. Then in the next paragraph you talk
about ray again as opposed to talking about his works.
: Ray would like you to believe that it depends on your acceptance
: of his authority. I'm saying that it doesn't matter who "I" am.
Which is a particularly entertaining comment, full of judgment as it
is... given what you are soon to say about judgement.
:
: You are free to draw your own conclusions and you are equally
: free to state them. Can you state your understanding of what this
:o is about without judgement, either of yourself or someone else?
Sure. Can you take what I write as being descriptive and not read
judgments into it that aren't there?
:
: Remember, if your judgement is correct, then the one who is
: judged must conform to that judgement. Are you willing to demand
: that others conform to your judgement of them?
I think you need to get more precise. Now it may be true that if my
judgment is correct than I might say in descriptive terms that my
judgment seems to match reality., However I do not expect that others
must strive to make my judgments the basis of their lives... I merely
assume that at this point in time my judgement matches what I see. If they
want to throw a feedback loop in and take the judgement as a basis for
action (and many of them will) thnat is a different issue from the judgement
itself.
:
: I believe that Raymond expects everyone to conform to his judgement
: of them. On the other hand, I don't expect anyone to believe what I
: say, they can decide for themselves. Which would you prefer?
Well... earlier in this post you were sitting around saying things like
'it is dangerous to listen either to ray or me... follow your own
understanding'. 'It doesn't matter what I say... it matters what you
perceive'. 'Can you remove the author from the discussion'. But now
you have asked that I recind all that and decide whether what I think
about the way I perceive you as acting is any better than what I think
about the way I perceive ray as acting. And I'm not going to remind
you that many people will take the above 'belief' as if it were
a judgement.
:
: I hope this is clear to you, because I don't intend to continue
: stating the same thing over and over. Goodbye, and may you be
: happy with your own conclusions.
What if I want to be sad about them? Or angry?
Have a nice day...
David
:
:
Glen Quarnstrom
ark...@cdsnet.net (Raymond Karczewski) take bait, hook, sinker, and
leader:
>Re: A Man of Truth and the Trickster (Was: Why}
<fun stuff from forger deleted>
>ark...@cdsnet.net (Raymond Karczewski) wrote:>
>gpt
>>I sincerely wish you well, Mr. Leader of Lemmings. Please don't jump.
>
>r
> The post toward which this response is being directed originated
>on 11-15-96, at 11:53 PM, bearing my name, Raymond Karczewski. the
>post was forged in my name...I did not author it. Clearly, thoughout
Gee, Linenoise, we all figured that out without any problem. I admit
the guy does have your writing "style" down pretty well; hundreds of
lines of polysyllabic nonsense posing as "truth" or wisdom. It is as
the rantings of a fool, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
>the forged post one will not find a trace of the identity of the game
>playing author of this post. I attached the label of "game playing
>trickster" to hold responsible some shadowy figure whose only purpose
>is obfuscation.
Just like your own inimitable crap.
> One who refuses to take responsibility for his/her statements
>deserves no serious response to them and therefore will get none.
HAHAHAHA! You've responded at length to everything this guy has
posted, including this latest gimmick. He's tapped your knee, and
you've jerked most obligingly. You, the exposer of mind control, have
had your own mind controlled beautifully by someone who admits UP
FRONT that he's a trickster. Nobody is easier to con than a Con Man.
> I, Raymond Karczewski, have left the post intact for others to
>see to what depths the professional confusers will go to stop someone
>who brings the truth to the world of conditioned man.
"Poor, poor, pitiful me..." Face it, bRay, you thrive on this stuff.
Your fragile ego craves attention, even if it's negative. There's no
other reason why you would crosspost your drivel into dozens of
newsgroups except to attract attention and, probably, customers for
your grifter's game.
> The post to which I am responding is an example of the
>BASSACKWARD realm that I repeatedly write about. It is an example of
>stepping through the looking glass where up is down, down is up, right
It's an example of a fakir getting faked by a better fakir.
>is wrong, and wrong is right. That is the realm of Dualism, and
>clever people proficient with twisting the meaning of dualistic words
>can create any kind of a confused scenario they wish for the purpose
>of creating confusion. This all happens at the letter of the word
>level, the level of deception.
Translation: You have no defense to the charges, so you retreat to
buzzwords.
> One thing that cannot be disguised however is the energy of the
>spirit behind the word. That is where the buck stops and
>responsibility begins. Clearly the shadowy author of the post, who
>refuses to take responsibility for his words, prefers to lurk in the
>darkness of secrecy, of intrigue, rather than stand in the clear light
>of truth for all to see.
Are his words less valid because the author is anonymous? After all,
we have no way of knowing who YOU really are, since you refuse to
answer any questions that would allow us to check up on your alleged
past employment as a policeman.
> To those who have been following my writings on the net, expect to
>see an increase of these kinds of posts in the future; for the mind
>controlling "tricksters" who are able to play with your minds are
>beginning to feel the heat of exposure to their chicanery.
> Raymond Karczewski
Getting a little warm there in the kitchen, Linenoise? Is that some
rancid ham I smell smoking here?
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
"GLEN QUARNSTROM" for all my Bell-Basher Fans.
Glen Quarnstrom
ark...@cdsnet.net (Raymond Karczewski) wrote:
>A Man of Truth and the Trickster (Was: Why}
>
>>cf...@mudbottom.org (The Talking Catfish) wrote:
<two hundred seventy lines (!) of NewAge Nonsense deleted>
> Raymond Karczewski
I love it when two talented bullshitters get to duking it out with
each other. There's enough fertilizer in this one post to raise forty
acres of corn.
Give him hell, Catfish. You can see by bRay's knee-jerk reaction that
you've scored a direct hit on his little psycho-scam.