Why is Cher afraid to interact with critics without being nasty?
arelurker
Could it be that she demonizes critics?
She's been using that word an awfully lot lately. Hmmmm. (as Cher often says.
Maybe it would rock her world not to be in conflict with others, like a
fish out of water.
Let's all wish her well.
Lurk
Leaf
wrote on 8/9/04 8:16 PM:
Maybe without having the a.r.e. conflicts to provide structure to her world,
she'd be lost.
mahav...@yahoo.com
From: gruendemann (gruen...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Darwin's status
View: Complete Thread (153 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.religion.eckankar
Date: 2000-09-06 17:12:45 PST
The funniest thing about darwins account of Sri Harold and Peter Skelsky
is that it's the only one of its kind of these two individuals being this
sort of people. Now I don't know about anyone else, but with a vicious
chip on his shoulder and a bone of contention darwin has said some pretty
ugly things all along...... and well frankly, I'd certainly not feel
anything amiss at saying I give Sri Harold and Peter the benefit of the
doubt here!!!
I was never a student of darwins. I wanted to join Eckankar for a while
after I found the teachings.... but could not get past the inner nudge
that it was not the right time to do so. I could not feel a connection
worth persuing with darwin. He left me feeling a strong sense of "shields
up!" and that's what I stuck with even though I read every book by Paul I
could find. When the seminar came where the Rod of Power was handed over
to Sri Harold, a friend who had gone to the seminar called me from her
hotel. She was just in shock! She said "Cheryl, you'll never guess what's
happened.... a new ECK Master!" I stopped her right there and said "Is he
the dark haired man in the hornedrimmed glasses?" Well, that threw her a
real curve! I knew that the Master I had studied with was now in place.
Shortly afterwards I joined Eckankar.
Years later I heard many different accounts of what had happened and I
realized the protection of the Mahanta throughout the whole transition. To
this day I am deeply grateful for having waited, for following my inner
guidance. :-)
*******************************************************8
"Shield's up"?
arelurker
I think it is more her structure of her inner world is manifested
outwardly. Critics get to be casted externally as her internal demons.
Lucky us.
Lurk
cher
that not all people you come across should be feared and loathed, even
if they see the world differently then you do. <smile>
cher
Thanks for the repost joe! <smile> So how was that stay in rehab by the
way? I heard you had a rough time of it there for awhile. They didn't
know if you'd make it or not.
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> Thank you lurk, and I wish for you the opportunity to someday realize
> that not all people you come across should be feared and loathed, even
> if they see the world differently then you do. <smile>
How ironic is this? In one post Cher is justifying her aggression
towards critics when she fears and loathes critics for seeing the
eckankar world differently than Cher does.
What a confused little pup.
Lurk
arelurker
This is a typical self justifying story eckists tell themselves to feel
really special.
Kind of crap you hear at a eckankar gatherings.
They might as well have a neon sign flashing on the front of their
shirt: LOOK EVERYBODY AREN'T I SPECIAL!
Lurk
cher
Actually kent is closer to the mark here, lurk. I do like conflict in my
world... it does bring about a sense of mental stimulation. I like that,
if it's intelligent. Most of what happens here is far from that, though.
But i did get a kick out of your assessment of me. It's exactly what i
think of you in presenting your world view of this path and all those
who follow it. Strange how the subconscious works, hey? <smile> If you
didn't have the personality of all ECKist so finely detailed in your
imagination, how could you judge so many so easily? Ask yourself... are
you that wise, or is it possible that you have just cast people you
don't trust into tiny little pigeon holes dressed in costumes you
created for them? Fascinating stuff... projections. I have no absolute
reference to what a former member must be like. Oddly enough after a
short period of time, those who come here seem to spit out the same
rhetoric as the entrenched group consciousness. Makes it difficult to
see who's who on the play card. That's when the exchange shifts to
mechanical. Some people recognise the mechanical nature and others take
it as proof of the reality of their imaginations. <smile> If there's one
thing I've learned on this newsgroup it's that the imagination is a
mighty tool and can shape the universe in any way we chose to use,
including the worst case scenerio. I guess that just goes to show why
some people manifest such crappy lives? God doesn't challenge what a
person does their creative imagination, whether positive or negative.
Construct the mold and it will be filled.
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> arelurker wrote:
> >
> > Leaf wrote:
> > >
> > > in article 41182976...@charter.net, arelurker at arel...@charter.net
> > > wrote on 8/9/04 8:16 PM:
> > >
> > > > That is the question of the day.
> > > >
> > > > Could it be that she demonizes critics?
> > > >
> > > > She's been using that word an awfully lot lately. Hmmmm. (as Cher often says.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe it would rock her world not to be in conflict with others, like a
> > > > fish out of water.
> > > >
> > > > Let's all wish her well.
> > > >
> > > > Lurk
> > >
> > > Maybe without having the a.r.e. conflicts to provide structure to her world,
> > > she'd be lost.
> >
> > I think it is more her structure of her inner world is manifested
> > outwardly. Critics get to be casted externally as her internal demons.
> > Lucky us.
> >
> > Lurk
>
> Actually kent is closer to the mark here, lurk. I do like conflict in my
> world... it does bring about a sense of mental stimulation.
Yeah, we all know that. You approach the world how your approach
yourself. I'm sure you berate and belittle yourself for stimulation. It
makes you feel alive. Often people do this as a result of having parents
that berated them and belittle them. It is called the negative love
syndrome. The child (a later the adult internal) only feel a sense of
well being, or loved when they have people belittling or berating them.
> I like that,
> if it's intelligent. Most of what happens here is far from that, though.
Case illustrated.
Your interactions goes way beyond playful banter.
> But i did get a kick out of your assessment of me. It's exactly what i
> think of you in presenting your world view of this path and all those
> who follow it. Strange how the subconscious works, hey? <smile> If you
> didn't have the personality of all ECKist so finely detailed in your
> imagination, how could you judge so many so easily? Ask yourself... are
> you that wise, or is it possible that you have just cast people you
> don't trust into tiny little pigeon holes dressed in costumes you
> created for them?
How about I was an eckists and healed that aspect of my life and I'm not
uniquely qualified to understand eckists like yourself who struggle
internally with a robust inner critic.
Fascinating stuff... projections. I have no absolute
> reference to what a former member must be like.
And therefore your understanding is limited.
Oddly enough after a
> short period of time, those who come here seem to spit out the same
> rhetoric as the entrenched group consciousness. Makes it difficult to
> see who's who on the play card. That's when the exchange shifts to
> mechanical. Some people recognise the mechanical nature and others take
> it as proof of the reality of their imaginations. <smile> If there's one
> thing I've learned on this newsgroup it's that the imagination is a
> mighty tool and can shape the universe in any way we chose to use,
> including the worst case scenerio. I guess that just goes to show why
> some people manifest such crappy lives? God doesn't challenge what a
> person does their creative imagination, whether positive or negative.
> Construct the mold and it will be filled.
This does not excuse nor justify your behavior here towards critics who
expressed negative opinions about eckankar and eck masters.
The internal demons and your over identification seems to be a more
reasonable explanation.
That you can not see you over identification and personalization is part
of the identification process. Being nasty serves its purpose if you see
this internal dynamic. Unfortunately, you seem to be a remedial student
when it comes to personal awareness for this has been pointed out to you
for about three year now.
Oh well.
Lurk
cher
Actually it is a special story. Your ridicule doesn't change that
reality at all. I know for certain that I cannot speak for all ECKist
though. So in that light, you are over zealous in this regard. The path
is made up of many of thousands of people with unique stories to share.
They are wives and husbands, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers,
young and old and all ages between. They come from all corners of the
earth and beyond if you want to get technical. And they each have their
own unique stories that lead them to the teachings.
> Kind of crap you hear at a eckankar gatherings.
Thank you. <smile>
> They might as well have a neon sign flashing on the front of their
> shirt: LOOK EVERYBODY AREN'T I SPECIAL!
>
> Lurk
My goodness... In case no one told you lurk, there isn't a limited
amount of "special" to go around. It's not like you have to lash out at
someone who has a sense of self esteem or self worth because you're
afraid that they are taking too much of it away with them. <lol>
cher
Excuse me? I say I like intellectual stimulation and you turn it into
this? Thisi s a projection, lurk. Your personal opinions in free
association. And yet the sad thing about it is that instead of learning
something from this, you believe what you say. And that's sad. Because
it means that you can cast me in this light and feel justified in
treating in a manner that frankly I would find deplorable to do someone
as crippled as you appear to think I am. I can't imagine what it is that
has left you to believe this free association about other people who you
are not the least bit interested in getting to know.
> > I like that,
> > if it's intelligent. Most of what happens here is far from that, though.
>
> Case illustrated.
>
> Your interactions goes way beyond playful banter.
As does yours lurk. That's the price one pays for posting on usenet
newsgroups. So your point is what? Are you going to be more respectful
me anytime soon or is this just your rules for how I should behave
regardless of how I'm treated? I do hope we're not going back to that
magical kingdom where the detractors expect Eckists to wear their
Mahanta masks so you guys can finally have your targets! That was just
stupid to say the least.
> > But i did get a kick out of your assessment of me. It's exactly what i
> > think of you in presenting your world view of this path and all those
> > who follow it. Strange how the subconscious works, hey? <smile> If you
> > didn't have the personality of all ECKist so finely detailed in your
> > imagination, how could you judge so many so easily? Ask yourself... are
> > you that wise, or is it possible that you have just cast people you
> > don't trust into tiny little pigeon holes dressed in costumes you
> > created for them?
>
> How about I was an eckists and healed that aspect of my life and I'm not
> uniquely qualified to understand eckists like yourself who struggle
> internally with a robust inner critic.
I agree, you're not uniquely qualified. Thanks for understanding my
point for once!
> Fascinating stuff... projections. I have no absolute
> > reference to what a former member must be like.
>
> And therefore your understanding is limited.
Admittedly. And that doesn't threaten me in the least. How do you feel
by understanding that the mold of ECKist that you manifested is a false
one that only serves you?
> Oddly enough after a
> > short period of time, those who come here seem to spit out the same
> > rhetoric as the entrenched group consciousness. Makes it difficult to
> > see who's who on the play card. That's when the exchange shifts to
> > mechanical. Some people recognise the mechanical nature and others take
> > it as proof of the reality of their imaginations. <smile> If there's one
> > thing I've learned on this newsgroup it's that the imagination is a
> > mighty tool and can shape the universe in any way we chose to use,
> > including the worst case scenerio. I guess that just goes to show why
> > some people manifest such crappy lives? God doesn't challenge what a
> > person does their creative imagination, whether positive or negative.
> > Construct the mold and it will be filled.
>
> This does not excuse nor justify your behavior here towards critics who
> expressed negative opinions about eckankar and eck masters.
LOL.... I wasn't seeking an excuse lurk. And how I chose to treat people
is basically dependant upon how they treat me. I don't waste the pink
fluffy stuff on junk yard dogs. <wink> It generally only makes them
madder.
> The internal demons and your over identification seems to be a more
> reasonable explanation.
Someone really needs to cancel your subscription to pyschology today.
<sigh> My internal demons are hardly your business nor are you an expert
on them. All you have is your experience from one cult to another.
> That you can not see you over identification and personalization is part
> of the identification process. Being nasty serves its purpose if you see
> this internal dynamic. Unfortunately, you seem to be a remedial student
> when it comes to personal awareness for this has been pointed out to you
> for about three year now.
If this makes you feel safe and secure then it's a shape in your little
world, lurk. I do notice that when you script this alter-cheryl that you
rail against so often that you always seem to place her in a catagory
beneath you as a student. Is this a fanatasy of yours? Just an
observation.
> Oh well.
>
> Lurk
cher
ends, give me a shout... okay? Cause I wouldn't want to rock your world
with your beloved alter-cher here. She so fits your world to a tee!
arelurker
It makes perfect sense.
Thisi s a projection, lurk. Your personal opinions in free
> association. And yet the sad thing about it is that instead of learning
> something from this, you believe what you say. And that's sad. Because
> it means that you can cast me in this light and feel justified in
> treating in a manner that frankly I would find deplorable to do someone
> as crippled as you appear to think I am.
I never said you were cripple, simply getting off on being belittled and
put down because it feels natural to you. So you go out of your why to
incite and collude with the comments that are directed at you.
The way you do that? By taking comments about eckankar and eck masters personally.
I can't imagine what it is that
> has left you to believe this free association about other people who you
> are not the least bit interested in getting to know.
I know you from your posts.
Lurk
>
> > > I like that,
> > > if it's intelligent. Most of what happens here is far from that, though.
> >
> > Case illustrated.
> >
> > Your interactions goes way beyond playful banter.
>
> As does yours lurk.
Yes, in response to yours. Get it yet?
That's the price one pays for posting on usenet
> newsgroups. So your point is what? Are you going to be more respectful
> me anytime soon or is this just your rules for how I should behave
> regardless of how I'm treated? I do hope we're not going back to that
> magical kingdom where the detractors expect Eckists to wear their
> Mahanta masks so you guys can finally have your targets! That was just
> stupid to say the least.
I expect you to address the issue when critical comments are brought up
about eckanakr and eck masters, not make the person the issue. Can you
do that?
>
> > > But i did get a kick out of your assessment of me. It's exactly what i
> > > think of you in presenting your world view of this path and all those
> > > who follow it. Strange how the subconscious works, hey? <smile> If you
> > > didn't have the personality of all ECKist so finely detailed in your
> > > imagination, how could you judge so many so easily? Ask yourself... are
> > > you that wise, or is it possible that you have just cast people you
> > > don't trust into tiny little pigeon holes dressed in costumes you
> > > created for them?
> >
> > How about I was an eckists and healed that aspect of my life and I'm not
> > uniquely qualified to understand eckists like yourself who struggle
> > internally with a robust inner critic.
>
> I agree, you're not uniquely qualified. Thanks for understanding my
> point for once!
That was a typo, of course.
>
> > Fascinating stuff... projections. I have no absolute
> > > reference to what a former member must be like.
> >
> > And therefore your understanding is limited.
>
> Admittedly. And that doesn't threaten me in the least. How do you feel
> by understanding that the mold of ECKist that you manifested is a false
> one that only serves you?
My understandin of eckists is based upon observing many eckists, being
an eckists, reading all the materials, and interacting with eckists here.
>
> > Oddly enough after a
> > > short period of time, those who come here seem to spit out the same
> > > rhetoric as the entrenched group consciousness. Makes it difficult to
> > > see who's who on the play card. That's when the exchange shifts to
> > > mechanical. Some people recognise the mechanical nature and others take
> > > it as proof of the reality of their imaginations. <smile> If there's one
> > > thing I've learned on this newsgroup it's that the imagination is a
> > > mighty tool and can shape the universe in any way we chose to use,
> > > including the worst case scenerio. I guess that just goes to show why
> > > some people manifest such crappy lives? God doesn't challenge what a
> > > person does their creative imagination, whether positive or negative.
> > > Construct the mold and it will be filled.
> >
> > This does not excuse nor justify your behavior here towards critics who
> > expressed negative opinions about eckankar and eck masters.
>
> LOL.... I wasn't seeking an excuse lurk. And how I chose to treat people
> is basically dependant upon how they treat me.
You are not eckankar. so there is no need for you to lash out when
someone criticizes eckanakar right?
I don't waste the pink
> fluffy stuff on junk yard dogs. <wink> It generally only makes them
> madder.
>
> > The internal demons and your over identification seems to be a more
> > reasonable explanation.
>
> Someone really needs to cancel your subscription to pyschology today.
> <sigh> My internal demons are hardly your business nor are you an expert
> on them. All you have is your experience from one cult to another.
>
> > That you can not see you over identification and personalization is part
> > of the identification process. Being nasty serves its purpose if you see
> > this internal dynamic. Unfortunately, you seem to be a remedial student
> > when it comes to personal awareness for this has been pointed out to you
> > for about three year now.
>
> If this makes you feel safe and secure then it's a shape in your little
> world, lurk.
It is in the archives.
Lurk
cher
No accounting for the twisted worlds of others, lurk. Not even yours.
> Thisi s a projection, lurk. Your personal opinions in free
> > association. And yet the sad thing about it is that instead of learning
> > something from this, you believe what you say. And that's sad. Because
> > it means that you can cast me in this light and feel justified in
> > treating in a manner that frankly I would find deplorable to do someone
> > as crippled as you appear to think I am.
>
> I never said you were cripple, simply getting off on being belittled and
> put down because it feels natural to you. So you go out of your why to
> incite and collude with the comments that are directed at you.
Lurk... how would you imagine a person deal with the sort of behavior
that detractors show us on this newsgroup? Do you have a fixed behavior
for that as well? Some minute limitation as to what you expect from them
given your construct of ECKists as robots?
> The way you do that? By taking comments about eckankar and eck masters personally.
Example: the crap you're trying to lay on me in this thread. Where
exactly does this cross over to any comments about Eckankar or the ECK
Masters? Show me. It seems fairly obvious to me that it's just you
casting apsersions on me personally. I'm not real big on being a martyr
so perhaps I'm missing what fix it is your seeking here?
> I can't imagine what it is that
> > has left you to believe this free association about other people who you
> > are not the least bit interested in getting to know.
>
> I know you from your posts.
Apparently not. But you sure do have a thing for that alter-cher you've
constructed here. Has she brought you up on charges yet? Got her
restraining order in hand? <lol>
Jadoo941
>
>
>
>cher wrote:
>>
>> Thank you lurk, and I wish for you the opportunity to someday realize
>> that not all people you come across should be feared and loathed, even
>> if they see the world differently then you do. <smile>
>
>How ironic is this? In one post Cher is justifying her aggression
>towards critics when she fears and loathes critics for seeing the
>eckankar world differently than Cher does.
>
>What a confused little pup.
Although you have extraordinary insight Lurk, in Chernobyl's case it's not
needed. Her pathology is as plain as the nose on her face. Beyond the
self-hatred is overriding loneliness. Love me or hate me, but don't ignore me
is her silent plea. She's obviously quite intelligent which makes her nut all
that much harder to crack.
I like her in spite of herself. Why? Because I understand her loneliness. She
lost her dear husband and hasn't worked through her grief, the manifestation of
anger in particular. I've lost family members and it is very, very hard to
remain serene.
That's the ironic thing. Cher's presence here has nada to do with eckankar. I
wonder if she senses that...
Although I have a degree, I'm not a psychologist, I just play one on the
internet. <schmile>
cher
> Re: Why is Cher afraid to interact with critics without being nasty?
T
to long. However, you two have a unique style. when I started reading
posts at a.r.e, I must admit some of the postings where not excactly
"sexy". If any erection, it was due to my arrector piliis .
The range of your posts go from firecrackers to brilliant . You
definitely see things differently, still, what I like is that you have
guts to express your views in an honest, intelligent and colourful
way. Just think about the contrasts you set up for eachother..Its an
excellent soil for creativity . I also find you very attentive and
sharp.As far as I have seen you also respect the sensitivy of those
posters who are not equally well trained in your way of exchange.
Underneath the surface I do think there is a bilateral respect, too.
So guys, you bring both garlic and chili to a.r.e (perhaps I should
write Tom & Jerry or something ) Thats what makes this newsgroup
unique. I appreciate you both !
from nowhere land, T
cher <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<4118E05E...@worldnet.att.net>...
Sam
> Jadoo941 wrote:
> > Re: Why is Cher afraid to interact with critics without being nasty?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >cher wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Thank you lurk, and I wish for you the opportunity to someday realize
> > >> that not all people you come across should be feared and loathed, even
> > >> if they see the world differently then you do. <smile>
> > >
> > >How ironic is this? In one post Cher is justifying her aggression
> > >towards critics when she fears and loathes critics for seeing the
> > >eckankar world differently than Cher does.
> > >
> > >What a confused little pup.
I personally don't give a damn whether Eckankar sucks or not (it does
and it doesn't, depending on the context), but to use widowhood as a
weapon is outright cruel.
That's my word for this issue, even though I may be delusional in some
areas of my life. Whoever wrote this about loneliness, has never truly
known loneliness.
Love
Samo
Sam
> > Re: Why is Cher afraid to interact with critics without being nasty?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >cher wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Thank you lurk, and I wish for you the opportunity to someday realize
> > >> that not all people you come across should be feared and loathed, even
> > >> if they see the world differently then you do. <smile>
> > >
> > >How ironic is this? In one post Cher is justifying her aggression
> > >towards critics when she fears and loathes critics for seeing the
> > >eckankar world differently than Cher does.
> > >
> > >What a confused little pup.
I personally don't give a damn whether Eckankar sucks or not (it does
and it doesn't, depending on the context), but to use widowhood as a
weapon is outright cruel.
That's my word for this issue, even though I may be delusional in some
areas of my life. Whoever wrote this about loneliness, has never truly
known loneliness.
Love
Samo
> >
Al Radzik
Why is Cher afraid to interact with critics without being nasty?
Good question. I don't even want to guess why cher is in attack mode all
the time or speculate on her life, but from how she posts here on a.r.e.
it seems like it gives her some kind of power she lacks in real life.
I don't know the woman, but I would guess that she suffers a deep
sadness. Perhaps the loss of her husband. Whatever the case may be, she
has a thick skin and loves a damned good fight.
Alf
Al Radzik
everyone. First off, no one knows when she lost her husband or the
circumstances around it. All we know is a cher who just a relentless
bitchmeister who never has a kind word for anyone. She is aggressive,
presumptuous and spews a hatred far beyond those of normal posters.
(wahtever that is). I don't buy into the fact that cher is who she is
because she lost her old man. It happens every day......it happened to
my sister twice and she remains a kind and loving person.
Plus, look at the ECK philosophy....he just translated. It shouldn't
make her that whacked out where she has to take it out on everyone who
posts here. Remember Windy who apparently lost her husband, Bob? She
didn't sem affected by it. It was like, Oh well, Bob's gone...what am I
suposed to feel. fuck you all.
Alf
Ken
"Al Radzik" <al_r...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
>
> In spite of cher's loss, it doesn't give her the license to bash
> everyone.
Coming from you Alfie, this is a joke. You love to bash people.
> First off, no one knows when she lost her husband or the
> circumstances around it. All we know is a cher who just a relentless
> bitchmeister who never has a kind word for anyone. She is aggressive,
> presumptuous and spews a hatred far beyond those of normal posters.
> (wahtever that is). I don't buy into the fact that cher is who she is
> because she lost her old man. It happens every day......it happened to
> my sister twice and she remains a kind and loving person.
> Plus, look at the ECK philosophy....he just translated. It shouldn't
> make her that whacked out where she has to take it out on everyone who
> posts here. Remember Windy who apparently lost her husband, Bob? She
> didn't sem affected by it. It was like, Oh well, Bob's gone...what am I
> suposed to feel. fuck you all.
What BS. What do you think you're gaining by demonizing someone so far
beyond the reality of the situation. Year in and year out, the most nasty and
cruel posters on this newsgroup are self-described ex-eckists.
cher
us sit here wondering how so many democrats sound so very much like Rush
Limbaugh. <grinning> Yeah... I know exactly what it is. It started with
lurk suddenly dealing with me pointing out how much his rhetoric sounded
like bush co. christian dogma. Within a few paragraphs he was set on
teaching me to see how nasty I was. And on and on it goes. You guys
don't seem to realize how old this game is. You think that trying to
discredit me in this fashion no one will notice your own behavior.
LOL.... Sure... just like the missing weapons of mass destruction.
<grinning>
Now, before you consider sitting in judgment of anyone elses behavior,
you just might want to take a scrub brush to your own front porch!
<smile>
cher
us sit here wondering how so many democrats sound so very much like Rush
Limbaugh. <grinning> Yeah... I know exactly what it is. It started with
lurk suddenly dealing with me pointing out how much his rhetoric sounded
like bush co. christian dogma. Within a few paragraphs he was set on
teaching me to see how nasty I was. And on and on it goes. You guys
don't seem to realize how old this game is. You think that trying to
discredit me in this fashion no one will notice your own behavior.
LOL.... Sure... just like the missing weapons of mass destruction.
<grinning>
Now, before you consider sitting in judgment of anyone elses behavior,
you just might want to take a scrub brush to your own front porch!
<smile>
cher
>
> "Al Radzik" <al_r...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
> >
> > In spite of cher's loss, it doesn't give her the license to bash
> > everyone.
>
> Coming from you Alfie, this is a joke. You love to bash people.
Can you spell hypocrite? I half wonder if alfie flushed all his posts
again! <sigh> But the truth of it is that there's a reporter roaming the
boards. A story on Eckankar and guess what? I get to be the worst of the
worst and alfie is suddenly sounding reasonable for once. <sigh> It's
the spot. ;-)
> > First off, no one knows when she lost her husband or the
> > circumstances around it. All we know is a cher who just a relentless
> > bitchmeister who never has a kind word for anyone. She is aggressive,
> > presumptuous and spews a hatred far beyond those of normal posters.
> > (wahtever that is). I don't buy into the fact that cher is who she is
> > because she lost her old man. It happens every day......it happened to
> > my sister twice and she remains a kind and loving person.
> > Plus, look at the ECK philosophy....he just translated. It shouldn't
> > make her that whacked out where she has to take it out on everyone who
> > posts here. Remember Windy who apparently lost her husband, Bob? She
> > didn't sem affected by it. It was like, Oh well, Bob's gone...what am I
> > suposed to feel. fuck you all.
>
> What BS. What do you think you're gaining by demonizing someone so far
> beyond the reality of the situation. Year in and year out, the most nasty and
> cruel posters on this newsgroup are self-described ex-eckists.
Well unless alfie flushed his posts again, he's in the archives in
living color. You know, come to think of it, this is almost scary given
what he posted to me just few days ago. I wonder if alfie's wife found
his newsreader. LOL.....
cher
> > a large erection not seen by you for many years now.
> > I can send you a picture, but that would be considered invasion of
> > privacy......like your cunt.
>
> > You wouldn't know a "clear, critical judgement" if it kicked you in the
> > balls, Ken. You follow this wanker, Harold around for years and
> > years....buy into his fake Eck Masters......believe that Harold has the
> > Sugmad's personal telephone number and you start talking about others'
> > critical judgements???
>
> > No room to talk Bucko...you've lost your right to think straight by
> > being involved in the Eckankar Lie factory.
> > Now why don't you go sit in the corner, chant HU, and suck on a blue
> > lollypop until the big bad "Kalf goes away.
> >
> > Cut the shit and lick the knife, Mikey. You are a loser with a psycho
> > hosebeast girlfriend who writes shitty songs like "Nazi Girl".
> > Your whole aura is busted wide open and the yellow stinking fluid of
> > your existence is poisoning the atmosphere.
> > You aren't cute, smart, clever or poignant. You are a knuckle fucking
> > loosely woven birdbrained dipshit pile of kanga waste sniffing the butt
> > of an imaginary Eck master and trying desperately to not tip over lest
> > your putrid atrophied brain matter falls out of the hole in your head.
> >
> > Love Alf
> > Aging old foggies know the likes of Shelley Berman, cher. Tell me....do
> > you have cellulite? Does you ass look like you've been sitting in a
> > gravel driveway for 3 weeks?
> >
> > This is precious! So Harold Klemp thinks he's like Jesus!
> > The bridge jumping, airport stripping recluse believes he can perform
> > miracles too?
> > All those in other newsgroups take a look at Eckankar's followers here
> > on alt.religion.eckankar and judge for yourself!!!!
> > They are a bunch of deluded, ego-inflated, cult puppies who spend their
> > entire exixtence fighting with detractors who know that Eckankar is a
> > lie and have proven it over and over again!
> >
> > Alf
> > She's lost it, big time, Lurk. You finally transformed her into a
> > drooling, babbling waste of precious air consuming organism.
> >
> > You are the dumbest fuck for making a statement like this.
> > Get real bitch..Time's a wastin!!!
> > SO let's see another Oasis Site! Stop with the bullshit and make one. I
> > heard all this talk about resurrecting it, but none of you asswipes have
> > the talent or time to make it!
> > Proof....and he probably looks like a girl when he gets out of the water!!
> > > I think Rich has a small penis.
> > Hey, DO you know a rectum stretcher by chance?. They start with one
> > finger, then two, then the whole fist is up your ass. They work it back
> > and forth until it's about 6 feet.
> > You may ask "What does one do with a 6 foot asshole?"
> >
> > Gives it a computer and calls it Michael Wallace.
cher
arelurker
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >cher wrote:
> >>
> >> Thank you lurk, and I wish for you the opportunity to someday realize
> >> that not all people you come across should be feared and loathed, even
> >> if they see the world differently then you do. <smile>
> >
> >How ironic is this? In one post Cher is justifying her aggression
> >towards critics when she fears and loathes critics for seeing the
> >eckankar world differently than Cher does.
> >
> >What a confused little pup.
>
> Although you have extraordinary insight Lurk, in Chernobyl's case it's not
> needed. Her pathology is as plain as the nose on her face. Beyond the
> self-hatred is overriding loneliness. Love me or hate me, but don't ignore me
> is her silent plea. She's obviously quite intelligent which makes her nut all
> that much harder to crack.
>
> I like her in spite of herself. Why? Because I understand her loneliness. She
> lost her dear husband and hasn't worked through her grief, the manifestation of
> anger in particular. I've lost family members and it is very, very hard to
> remain serene.
I usually don't do these little fire side chats about others, but I
think I might here. It would be interesting to show eckists how they
come off when they talk about detractors with each other:
My guess is Cher was acustomed to bouncing her self hatred off her
husband. This is no longer possible since he chose to check out (can't
say I blame him). She despartately needs someone to bounce her self
hatred off of in order to feel alive. Critics on a.r.e. unforntunately
have served as here surrogate husband, a repository for her pain. She
has no where to dump iton since her husband is no longer with her.
Lucky us, eh?
Lurk
cher
this newsgroup.
Ken
> >>circumstances around it. All we know is a cher who just a relentless
> >>bitchmeister who never has a kind word for anyone. She is aggressive,
> >>presumptuous and spews a hatred far beyond those of normal posters.
> >>(wahtever that is). I don't buy into the fact that cher is who she is
> >>because she lost her old man. It happens every day......it happened to
> >>my sister twice and she remains a kind and loving person.
> >>Plus, look at the ECK philosophy....he just translated. It shouldn't
> >>make her that whacked out where she has to take it out on everyone who
> >>posts here. Remember Windy who apparently lost her husband, Bob? She
> >>didn't sem affected by it. It was like, Oh well, Bob's gone...what am I
> >>suposed to feel. fuck you all.
> >
> >
> >
> > What BS. What do you think you're gaining by demonizing someone so far
> > beyond the reality of the situation. Year in and year out, the most nasty and
> > cruel posters on this newsgroup are self-described ex-eckists.
>
> very same thing to detractors. When it comes to bashing, there is no us
> and them.
The detractors are far, far nastier as a whole.
Ken
"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote ...
>
> Here's a project for you lurk: Define "self hatred" as you use it in
> this newsgroup.
Why should he? He's so busy defining you ...
arelurker
You can address the issues that are raised and not make the critic the
issue.
> Do you have a fixed behavior
> for that as well? Some minute limitation as to what you expect from them
> given your construct of ECKists as robots?
>
> > The way you do that? By taking comments about eckankar and eck masters personally.
>
> Example: the crap you're trying to lay on me in this thread. Where
> exactly does this cross over to any comments about Eckankar or the ECK
> Masters? Show me.
Cher I demonstrated clearly you making me the issue when I raise the
theory about Paul's childhood pain being integral in the development
of eckankar. You said I was projecting my pathology and went on to
hurl insults. You muse have felt offended and took my comments about
Paul personally.
All you can do is deny and pretend.
> It seems fairly obvious to me that it's just you
> casting apsersions on me personally.
I'm pointing out how nasty you are to people who have different
opinions about eckankar.
That really goes without saying. Most people would view your comments
towards critics a vile except a few die hard fanatical eckists like
Rich, Ken, Doug, and Sean.
I'm not real big on being a martyr
> so perhaps I'm missing what fix it is your seeking here?
>
> > I can't imagine what it is that
> > > has left you to believe this free association about other people who you
> > > are not the least bit interested in getting to know.
> >
> > I know you from your posts.
>
> Apparently not. But you sure do have a thing for that alter-cher you've
> constructed here. Has she brought you up on charges yet? Got her
> restraining order in hand? <lol>
I'm not making things up. You are on record positioning yourself as
the newsgroup cop. You feel totally justified in being nasty to
critics. You even gave us your reasons for posting to critics. You
said, "No one is trying to make you stop posting to this group, only
clean up your act and behave responsibly for yourselves and your
actions."
I dare say this mission you are on ironically applies to your own
behavior. IN other words, it is YOU who needs to clean up your act and
post responsibily by addressing the issues instead of making critics
the issue.
Ready to apply you mission to yourself?
Lurk
cher
>
> "cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote ...
> >
> > Here's a project for you lurk: Define "self hatred" as you use it in
> > this newsgroup.
>
> Why should he? He's so busy defining you ...
<sigh> I guess he gave up on defining Eckankar for the world, I'm an
easier target. :-/
cher
you presented here on Paul? tsk.... now that's hardly the behavior of a
true scholar, lurk. LOL.... poor baby. LOL.... You need to learn
something about neutrality in study. You apparently have way too much at
stake here. LOL.....
cher
knowledge of psychology, lurk. I can't fathom a genuine psychologist
using their understand of human nature in order to attack/destroy
another human being when the first law of healing is "do no harm". Don't
fret. It's common with people who read about psychology but have no
first hand experiences in the application of it. Even the letters
between Jung and Freud show respect for each other. Amateurs immediately
use psychology as a defense mechanism against those that frighten them
in life, a measure of their fears alone. A true indication of a
beginner. The field of psychology would never have lasted a decade in
this world if the main purpose was to use what they gleaned about human
nature as weapons against their clients. After all, what advantage does
any man take from the utter destruction of his enemy then a loss of his
own humanity? When you've lost that, what's left? Even skeptics know
better than this. <smile>
Jadoo941
>From: "Ken" kah...@att.not
>Date: 8/13/2004 12:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <1n8Tc.442106$Gx4.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Fuck you. :)
mahav...@yahoo.com
Who's nastiest of all?
My vote would be Paul Twitchell, for all those Eck threats in the
Shariyat and Eck Discourses.
Hard to think of anything nastier than a guy who sells himself as the
true God-man and tells you you're going to hell is you leave him "for
any reason."
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> My goodness... all this ranting and raving because I saw through what
> you presented here on Paul?
You didn't address the issue I raised, you simply made me the issue. I
highlighted this instance not because it is rare, but to demonstrate
that making critics the issue is "business as usual" for you.
When I bring this up you keep avoiding responding to this simple fact
this. Why?
Can you not face that you make critics the issue?
Are you that steeped in denial?
Lurk
arelurker
being nasty?
Wed, 31 Dec 1969 20:38:35 -0500
From:
arelurker <arel...@charter.net>
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.eckankar
References:
1 , 2 , 3 , 4
cher wrote:
>
> Now this is exactly what allows me to understand that you have no
> knowledge of psychology, lurk. I can't fathom a genuine psychologist
> using their understand of human nature in order to attack/destroy
> another human being when the first law of healing is "do no harm".
First of all, I'm not a psychologist.
Secondly, what you are calling attacking and destroying is me mirroring
the way you behave on this newsgroup. So I am glad you are having that
insight....now if you can only take it a step future and see you own
attacking of critics by routinely making them the issue instead of
addressing the issue raised.
I even told you I was mirroring how you eckists like to have little
fireside chats about critics.
Don't
> fret. It's common with people who read about psychology but have no
> first hand experiences in the application of it.
This is exactly how your post come off Cher. You have book knowledge but
a very low awareness level of the obvious splitting within yourself.
Even the letters
> between Jung and Freud show respect for each other. Amateurs immediately
> use psychology as a defense mechanism against those that frighten them
> in life, a measure of their fears alone.
Yes, this is exactly what you do when you respond defensively to critic's
posts which critique eckankar or eck masters. You take it personally,
become defense and start in with your psycho-blather that is amateurish.
Part of being a divided person is seeing things in others that you
yourself demonstrate.
A true indication of a
> beginner. The field of psychology would never have lasted a decade in
> this world if the main purpose was to use what they gleaned about human
> nature as weapons against their clients. After all, what advantage does
> any man take from the utter destruction of his enemy then a loss of his
> own humanity?
Aren't you being a little dramatic here: "Utter destruction of his
enemy?" <lol>
I'm just giving you back your psycho-blather...only mine actually makes
more sense and is on target.
You know we could be talking issues, instead of making each other the
issue. I have pleaded with you several time to make that commitment,
but you have obtained.
You must enjoy attempting the "utter destruction" of your enemy and to
have such reactions come back to you or else you wouldn't do it. Why do
you seek to destroy critics here (your words)? Why do you continue to
collude with
people to support your core self hatred?
Those are the questions that might be good to ask yourself. I mean
really....all you have to do is stick with the issue. But you can't!
Know why? Because of your compulsive religious addict and can not help
yourself! You pain controls your responses.
That's why I often suggest you doing some personal growth work. You need
not be interested in any kind of religious transcendent states when you
have a self system based upon self hatred that causes heavy emotions and
fixed views. Do a little fearless self exploration and become aware of
your shame and self hatred. I guarantee you will not be asking people
for url's and definitions of self hatred to learn about it. You will
feel it, experience it and know its power first hand.
Lurk
When you've lost that, what's left? Even skeptics know
> better than this. <smile>
>
cher
to accept that people see how freaked out you become when anyone
summarily dismisses one of your pet ideas and then you obsess over the
persons shortcomings as if this somehow makes up for your silly idea
acceptable? Now if you come up with something that isn't steeped in mere
bias and designed to demonize the teachings or its teachers, give me a
call. <smile>
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> No. <smile> I told you what I thought of your idea.
Originally you said it was a projection of my pathology and went on a
"making me the issue" rant.
When are you going
> to accept that people see how freaked out you become when anyone
> summarily dismisses one of your pet ideas and then you obsess over the
> persons shortcomings as if this somehow makes up for your silly idea
> acceptable?
Cher your alternative viewpoints, when you do express them without
making me the issue, do not freak me out. Most of them are unsupported
and suffer from poor thinking skills. Perhaps that is why you default to
making people the issue?
Now if you come up with something that isn't steeped in mere
> bias and designed to demonize the teachings or its teachers, give me a
> call. <smile>
In others words, you will continue to make me the issue and not address
the issues raised.... You will continue to spew your self hatred on
others here and try to get others to support your poor self regard.
Lurk
cher
this seems pretty miraculous to me. <grinning> Having problems with your
newsreader, lurk?
arelurker wrote:
>
> Subject:
> Re: Why is Cher afraid to interact with critics without
> being nasty?
> Date:
> Wed, 31 Dec 1969 20:38:35 -0500
> From:
> arelurker <arel...@charter.net>
> Newsgroups:
> alt.religion.eckankar
> References:
> 1 , 2 , 3 , 4
>
> cher wrote:
> >
> > Now this is exactly what allows me to understand that you have no
> > knowledge of psychology, lurk. I can't fathom a genuine psychologist
> > using their understand of human nature in order to attack/destroy
> > another human being when the first law of healing is "do no harm".
>
> First of all, I'm not a psychologist.
DUH! So why do you attempt to play one on the stage of a.r.e.? After
all, this is the basis of your theory on all things Paul and his mental
health as you see it. Or did I miss something in all the ranting you've
done because I didn't give you the "respect" you demand for such things
as this thread?
> Secondly, what you are calling attacking and destroying is me mirroring
> the way you behave on this newsgroup. So I am glad you are having that
> insight....now if you can only take it a step future and see you own
> attacking of critics by routinely making them the issue instead of
> addressing the issue raised.
Bullshit! <smile> What I'm saying to you here is that you're not a
psychologist and your idea about Paul is bogus. It's based on faulty
thinking and steeped in the process of negative free association. You
should look into what that little phrase means, by the way... it could
genuinely help you and the detractors a great deal. <wink>
> I even told you I was mirroring how you eckists like to have little
> fireside chats about critics.
Yeah... we all know how jealous you are of ECKists communicating with
each other and summarily dismissing your presence. So your point?
> Don't
> > fret. It's common with people who read about psychology but have no
> > first hand experiences in the application of it.
>
> This is exactly how your post come off Cher. You have book knowledge but
> a very low awareness level of the obvious splitting within yourself.
<sigh> Yeah... according to you. <smile> Am I less frightening to you
now, lurk?
> Even the letters
> > between Jung and Freud show respect for each other. Amateurs immediately
> > use psychology as a defense mechanism against those that frighten them
> > in life, a measure of their fears alone.
>
> Yes, this is exactly what you do when you respond defensively to critic's
> posts which critique eckankar or eck masters. You take it personally,
> become defense and start in with your psycho-blather that is amateurish.
> Part of being a divided person is seeing things in others that you
> yourself demonstrate.
Divided person? <sigh> You do realize that you're attacking me
personally here because i think your construct of Paul's childhood is
pure bullshit, right? You certainly are no threat to Eckankar or the ECK
Masters, lurk. The only person you're a threat to, is you. You're doing
exactly what you're freaking out and trying to convince me I'm doing?
<sheeeesh> lurk... the best I can say about you is that you leave a
person feeling dizzy after trying to follow your thinking. <sigh>
> A true indication of a
> > beginner. The field of psychology would never have lasted a decade in
> > this world if the main purpose was to use what they gleaned about human
> > nature as weapons against their clients. After all, what advantage does
> > any man take from the utter destruction of his enemy then a loss of his
> > own humanity?
>
> Aren't you being a little dramatic here: "Utter destruction of his
> enemy?" <lol>
Oh really? What is your goal? You have been stomping your little foot
here trying to tear me down to your idea of no-thing in the process of
coming up with ideas why I think your mind is best left to landscaping
and road work. You've thrown everything at me but the kitchen sink....
in fact you've tried to use my husbands death to convince me it's me and
not your lack of mental acuity. <smile> Hey... I guess when you're
desperate then you use what you have. <lol>
> I'm just giving you back your psycho-blather...only mine actually makes
> more sense and is on target.
LOL.... well in your fantasy world.
> You know we could be talking issues, instead of making each other the
> issue. I have pleaded with you several time to make that commitment,
> but you have obtained.
You're the one obsessing over me here! I can't for the life of figure
out what you think you can accomplish by obsessing over me but I guess
this just shows how you've dealt with leaving Eckankar and the leaders
of the path all these years. It appears to be pathological with you!
LOL.......
> You must enjoy attempting the "utter destruction" of your enemy and to
> have such reactions come back to you or else you wouldn't do it. Why do
> you seek to destroy critics here (your words)? Why do you continue to
> collude with
> people to support your core self hatred?
Well hon, take a look at what you've thrown at me so far in this thread!
Go ahead... take a look at what you've lobbed in my direction for what
could only appear to normal human beings as the behavior of an abusive
man. In all honesty.... look at what you've posted and see what you can
find that hasn't been deeply steeped in the most destructive behavior.
Now for just a moment, imagine that this is how lurk approaches life.
Imagine for a moment that this is what lurk honestly believes is
critical thinking. I for one can't imagine lurk having children after
seeing how your mind works. Now that's a sobering thought. Outside your
box, there is a whole world, and this is very likely exactly how you
approach it. <shudder>
> Those are the questions that might be good to ask yourself. I mean
> really....all you have to do is stick with the issue. But you can't!
> Know why? Because of your compulsive religious addict and can not help
> yourself! You pain controls your responses.
I'm divided/split self with self hatred and compulsive religious addict
with pain? All because I honestly believe your idea about Paul is based
exactly in your behavior towards me in this thread? LOL..... How many
teachers did you plot to take out in high school, lurk? LOL......
> That's why I often suggest you doing some personal growth work. You need
> not be interested in any kind of religious transcendent states when you
> have a self system based upon self hatred that causes heavy emotions and
> fixed views. Do a little fearless self exploration and become aware of
> your shame and self hatred. I guarantee you will not be asking people
> for url's and definitions of self hatred to learn about it. You will
> feel it, experience it and know its power first hand.
Gee... and will I end up like you? <shudder> I think I'll pass!
LOL...... Seems the only shame i have is the shame you've tried to bury
me in since I told you that I thought your idea about Paul was more
about your pathology then his! I'm more convinced now that I was right
then when I first said so. I don't know which parent did this to you,
but there are laws against such things. <sigh> Good luck old boy!
Someday you might find happiness somehow.
Ken
<mahav...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
> >
> > The detractors are far, far nastier as a whole.
>
> Who's nastiest of all?
>
> My vote would be Paul Twitchell, for all those Eck threats in the
> Shariyat and Eck Discourses.
>
> Hard to think of anything nastier than a guy who sells himself as the
> true God-man and tells you you're going to hell is you leave him "for
> any reason."
It doesn't seem to bother most people. Maybe that's because they aren't
narrow-minded literalists?
cher
Yeah sure... that's so much nastier then all the garbage you guys pull
on this newsgroup or the steller web sites you put up or the letters you
send off to anyone who mentions Eckankar or the .... oh hell... never
mind. It's like talking to a rock. <sigh> Here's a newsflash for you
joe... YOU ARE NO LONGER A MEMBER OF THIS PATH! In other words, what you
do now with these so called threats is your choice, and not associated
with this path anylonger. You sure do spend a great deal of time
wrapping yourself in the worst case scenerio, hey? Too bad you didn't
chose passages about love, compassion or freedom when you left.
cher
I'll see your idea about Paul's childhood as worth addressing. I had
hoped that I made it clear to you in this lastest experience of your
abusive obsessive behavior that I think your idea about Paul is your
pathology. If you need an example of what I mean, take a look at your
idea about Paul and then reread what you've said to me in this thread.
The answers are here.
Jadoo941
>> Hard to think of anything nastier than a guy who sells himself as the
>> true God-man and tells you you're going to hell is you leave him "for
>> any reason."
>
>
>It doesn't seem to bother most people. Maybe that's because they aren't
>narrow-minded literalists?
The only narrow-minded literalist is the guy who wrote that trash. By your very
membership in ekcnakar you are supporting that hatred. So, you are either
deluded, believing that the words don't convey exactly what they were mean't to
convey or you are a hater and an elitist who thinks god is one his side.
Which is it Ken Doll?
Ken
"Jadoo941" <jado...@aol.com> wrote ...
Well, you've said that you think killing innocent people is a valid spiritual
path.
What you believe about Eckankar pales in comparison to that.
Jim McK
Al Radzik <al_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<4a70b$411bdc97$18e1a310$80...@allthenewsgroups.com>...
> > "Al Radzik" <al_r...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
> I have a bashing license.
> Alf
Jadoo941
>From: "Ken" kah...@att.not
>Message-id: <slQTc.454748$Gx4.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Sorry sidestep. Killing people in the name of god is not my cup of tea but
obviously it is for thousands? millions? Are you too stupid to get this or just
too arrogant? Would you say the U.S. massacre of thousands in the name of the
great god Capitalism is "an invalid path"?
Why don't you answer the question. Who's more deluded, you or Paul Twitchell?
>What you believe about Eckankar pales in comparison to that.
Go talk to Barbie, she's more your speed, cult moron.
Michael Wallace
"Ken" <kah...@att.not> wrote in message
For Joe's sake, please keep all responses to Black and White agreements. It
is either ALL black or ALL white... If you can just remember that, everyone
will get on fine.
The fact that he talks crap is NOT the issue... It is whether we agree that
it is ALL crap or otherwise that is important <G>
Love
Michael
>
>
Ken
"Michael Wallace" <yoyoe...@waffle.com.au> wrote ...
Absolutist? Well then, I'm absolutely sure that yes indeed, it's ALL
black and white!
Wait, that's not what you had in mind?
@aloha.net Rich
"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
> Here's a newsflash for you
> joe... YOU ARE NO LONGER A MEMBER OF THIS PATH! In other words, what
you
> do now with these so called threats is your choice, and not associated
> with this path anylonger. You sure do spend a great deal of time
> wrapping yourself in the worst case scenerio, hey? Too bad you didn't
> chose passages about love, compassion or freedom when you left.
Seems to be the case with a great many of the detractors. They keep
calling us brainwashed cultists because we embrace the preponderance of
the passages. And here they are 5, 10, and even 20 years later still
complaining and being nasty because of their fears.
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> Lurk... I owe you an apology. Apparently you believe there's hope that
> I'll see your idea about Paul's childhood as worth addressing. I had
> hoped that I made it clear to you in this lastest experience of your
> abusive obsessive behavior that I think your idea about Paul is your
> pathology. If you need an example of what I mean, take a look at your
> idea about Paul and then reread what you've said to me in this thread.
> The answers are here.
I presented a theory about paul's self hatred and tied it to his
childhood experiences and you responded by calling it a projection of my
own pathology and then went on a rant. In response to your rant, I began
to make you the issue to give you a taste of your own medicine. My
behvior towards you cher is mirroring your anyalzing and making me the
issue. It seems you don't like it when people do to you what you do to
them. In fact you call it abuse. That should give you a clue about
yourself and your self hated. Shut your computer off and go do some real
personal growth work!
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> Well this is odd. I don't recall actually posting this in 1969! In fact,
> this seems pretty miraculous to me. <grinning> Having problems with your
> newsreader, lurk?
>
> arelurker wrote:
> >
> > Subject:
> > Re: Why is Cher afraid to interact with critics without
> > being nasty?
> > Date:
> > Wed, 31 Dec 1969 20:38:35 -0500
> > From:
> > arelurker <arel...@charter.net>
> > Newsgroups:
> > alt.religion.eckankar
> > References:
> > 1 , 2 , 3 , 4
> >
> > cher wrote:
> > >
> > > Now this is exactly what allows me to understand that you have no
> > > knowledge of psychology, lurk. I can't fathom a genuine psychologist
> > > using their understand of human nature in order to attack/destroy
> > > another human being when the first law of healing is "do no harm".
> >
> > First of all, I'm not a psychologist.
>
> DUH! So why do you attempt to play one on the stage of a.r.e.?
I play one with you because you play one with critics here. How's it feel?
After
> all, this is the basis of your theory on all things Paul and his mental
> health as you see it.
I don't feel I have to have to be a psychologist to render an opinion
about Paul's psych.
> Or did I miss something in all the ranting you've
> done because I didn't give you the "respect" you demand for such things
> as this thread?
Seems you did miss something. I never presented my opinion as a
professional psychological opinion.
>
> > Secondly, what you are calling attacking and destroying is me mirroring
> > the way you behave on this newsgroup. So I am glad you are having that
> > insight....now if you can only take it a step future and see you own
> > attacking of critics by routinely making them the issue instead of
> > addressing the issue raised.
>
> Bullshit! <smile> What I'm saying to you here is that you're not a
> psychologist and your idea about Paul is bogus. It's based on faulty
> thinking and steeped in the process of negative free association.
Actually my ideas about Paul are based upon my wisdom. These ideas are
debatable. Telling me my theories or ideas about Paul are my projection
or negative free association is not a debating nor is it any kind of
refutation; it is simply making me the issue. Can't help yourself, can you?
I never said I was a psychologist so I don't know why you are bringing
that up.
You
> should look into what that little phrase means, by the way... it could
> genuinely help you and the detractors a great deal. <wink>
>
> > I even told you I was mirroring how you eckists like to have little
> > fireside chats about critics.
>
> Yeah... we all know how jealous you are of ECKists communicating with
> each other and summarily dismissing your presence. So your point?
I'm not jealous of you eckists when you do your little butt sniffing
thing. I thought it might be revealing to you to see how it feels for
two people to talk about you in the same vile way you eckists like to
chat about critics.. You reacted and didn't seem to like it. Now do you
think others like it when you eckists do it? It's all about the lessons
you need to learn Cher. But it seems you're a bit slow on the uptake.
>
> > Don't
> > > fret. It's common with people who read about psychology but have no
> > > first hand experiences in the application of it.
> >
> > This is exactly how your post come off Cher. You have book knowledge but
> > a very low awareness level of the obvious splitting within yourself.
>
> <sigh> Yeah... according to you.
According to anybody with a modicum of self awareness.
<smile> Am I less frightening to you
> now, lurk?
Honestly, you're capacity for denial is kind of scary.
>
> > Even the letters
> > > between Jung and Freud show respect for each other. Amateurs immediately
> > > use psychology as a defense mechanism against those that frighten them
> > > in life, a measure of their fears alone.
> >
> > Yes, this is exactly what you do when you respond defensively to critic's
> > posts which critique eckankar or eck masters. You take it personally,
> > become defense and start in with your psycho-blather that is amateurish.
> > Part of being a divided person is seeing things in others that you
> > yourself demonstrate.
>
> Divided person? <sigh>
Yes, that's when you THINK you are one way and you behave in an
completely different way.
You do realize that you're attacking me
> personally here because i think your construct of Paul's childhood is
> pure bullshit, right?
All I'm doing is taking your comments you throw my way and showing
everybody how they apply to you more than me. Why is it attacking when I
apply your comments to yourself and they seem to fit like a glove?
Saying my ideas about Paul's childhood are pure bullshit is no refutation.
You certainly are no threat to Eckankar or the ECK
> Masters, lurk. The only person you're a threat to, is you. You're doing
> exactly what you're freaking out and trying to convince me I'm doing?
I'm making you the issue because you are trying so hard, so compulsively
hard to make me the issue. I'm trying to show you have it feels to walk
in a critic's moccasins. Everytime you object to my comments being
attacking you are essentially objecting to your own behavior....only
you're having trouble connecting the dots. A sign of a divided person.
> <sheeeesh> lurk... the best I can say about you is that you leave a
> person feeling dizzy after trying to follow your thinking. <sigh>
That's how many feel when they engage you Cher. Welcome to the world of
responding to Cher. It ain't pretty, is it?
>
> > A true indication of a
> > > beginner. The field of psychology would never have lasted a decade in
> > > this world if the main purpose was to use what they gleaned about human
> > > nature as weapons against their clients. After all, what advantage does
> > > any man take from the utter destruction of his enemy then a loss of his
> > > own humanity?
> >
> > Aren't you being a little dramatic here: "Utter destruction of his
> > enemy?" <lol>
>
> Oh really? What is your goal?
I've probably said this about fifty times now in the last couple of
weeks: My goal is to show you how it is to respond to Cher in the hope
that you will get it and start addressing the issues that are raised and
stop making critics the issue. I prefer to discuss issues not
psychoanalysis each other. This is hardly trying to destroy you. See how
dramatic you were being?
You have been stomping your little foot
> here trying to tear me down to your idea of no-thing in the process of
> coming up with ideas why I think your mind is best left to landscaping
> and road work. You've thrown everything at me but the kitchen sink....
What I have throw at you is YOU Cher. Hard to swallow, eh?
> in fact you've tried to use my husbands death to convince me it's me and
> not your lack of mental acuity. <smile> Hey... I guess when you're
> desperate then you use what you have. <lol>
I referred to your husband in a theory about you that demonstrates
exactly what you do to critics here Cher.
That you are outraged is ironic. You should be outraged at your own
behavior. But you're not. You know why? Because you are a religious
fanatic and you think it is alright to make people the issue to protect
the fairy tale you identify with for so many years.
>
> > I'm just giving you back your psycho-blather...only mine actually makes
> > more sense and is on target.
>
> LOL.... well in your fantasy world.
This is what is happening here. You're just blind to it.
>
> > You know we could be talking issues, instead of making each other the
> > issue. I have pleaded with you several time to make that commitment,
> > but you have obtained.
>
> You're the one obsessing over me here!
I guess in a way your are right. I have to be obsessive to mirror your
obsessive behavior. It is kind of getting old and you're not getting it
no matter how big a mirror I hold up.
In all your zeal to show up critics as stupid, you remain one of the
slowest to get your own behavior I have seen. it's toss up between you
and Rich. Internally your intolerance of your own self making a mistake
keeps you locked into a place of never admitting you are mistaken. Why?
Because the same shame you throw at others that make a mistake here you
will use on yourself. So you denial kicks in an you get to forever
remain terminally stupid. You refuse to look at how you make critics
the issue and how your communication comes from a shaming space within
yourself. You refuse to see the overtones of your posts of "everybody is
stupid and I'm not" is really an outward expression of your fear to
admit to making a mistake and a strong need to feel superior to
compensate for feeling so small.
The net result of all this is the very thing you fear—of being seen as
stupid— is created.
> I can't for the life of figure
> out what you think you can accomplish by obsessing over me
Nor can the critics figure out what your think you accomplish by
obsessing and being nasty towards them.
but I guess
> this just shows how you've dealt with leaving Eckankar and the leaders
> of the path all these years. It appears to be pathological with you!
> LOL.......
>
> > You must enjoy attempting the "utter destruction" of your enemy and to
> > have such reactions come back to you or else you wouldn't do it. Why do
> > you seek to destroy critics here (your words)? Why do you continue to
> > collude with
> > people to support your core self hatred?
>
> Well hon, take a look at what you've thrown at me so far in this thread!
Yes I've throw a lot of CHER towards Cher.
> Go ahead... take a look at what you've lobbed in my direction for what
> could only appear to normal human beings as the behavior of an abusive
> man.
Good to see you think it is abusive, now if you would only see it in
yourself and see how you are abusive to others.
Gawd, you are the worst kind of abusive person because your abusiveness
happens on a unconscious level. You have no awareness of you nastiness.
Even when I act like you and analyze you and use psychology on you like
you do to others, you simply do not get it. Again, everytime you call me
abusive you are calling yourself abusive, only you don't know it.
In all honesty.... look at what you've posted and see what you can
> find that hasn't been deeply steeped in the most destructive behavior.
> Now for just a moment, imagine that this is how lurk approaches life.
> Imagine for a moment that this is what lurk honestly believes is
> critical thinking.
Making people the issue is not critical thinking, so why do you do it Cher?
I for one can't imagine lurk having children after
> seeing how your mind works. Now that's a sobering thought. Outside your
> box, there is a whole world, and this is very likely exactly how you
> approach it. <shudder>
>
> > Those are the questions that might be good to ask yourself. I mean
> > really....all you have to do is stick with the issue. But you can't!
> > Know why? Because of your compulsive religious addict and can not help
> > yourself! You pain controls your responses.
>
> I'm divided/split self with self hatred and compulsive religious addict
> with pain?
Yes.
> All because I honestly believe your idea about Paul is based
> exactly in your behavior towards me in this thread?
No, because you can not address the issue raised and compulsive make
people this issue. Look at yourself: Even when I point out how you make
me and others the issue you continue to do it.
And when I make you the issue to show you how you act, you call it abusive.
LOL..... How many
> teachers did you plot to take out in high school, lurk? LOL......
>
> > That's why I often suggest you doing some personal growth work. You need
> > not be interested in any kind of religious transcendent states when you
> > have a self system based upon self hatred that causes heavy emotions and
> > fixed views. Do a little fearless self exploration and become aware of
> > your shame and self hatred. I guarantee you will not be asking people
> > for url's and definitions of self hatred to learn about it. You will
> > feel it, experience it and know its power first hand.
>
> Gee... and will I end up like you? <shudder> I think I'll pass!
Pussy.
> LOL...... Seems the only shame i have is the shame you've tried to bury
> me in since I told you that I thought your idea about Paul was more
> about your pathology then his!
Believe me Cher, the shame and self hatred you exhibit here in your
posts are not the result of me telling you about it. This is lifetime
stuff you are hurling at people here.
I'm more convinced now that I was right
> then when I first said so. I don't know which parent did this to you,
> but there are laws against such things. <sigh> Good luck old boy!
> Someday you might find happiness somehow.
She continues on with the analyzing. This is her defense.
I think you need to reread Astral's post on the definition of self hatred.
Lurk
cher
Actually Ken, your "narrow-minded literalist" is pretty much right on
the mark! That's the sort of person who can pick and chose any value on
the scale and make it appear to the only one needed. That's how joe can
take middle gray and make it seem like an issue. ;-)
cher
>
> "cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>
> > Here's a newsflash for you
> > joe... YOU ARE NO LONGER A MEMBER OF THIS PATH! In other words, what
> you
> > do now with these so called threats is your choice, and not associated
> > with this path anylonger. You sure do spend a great deal of time
> > wrapping yourself in the worst case scenerio, hey? Too bad you didn't
> > chose passages about love, compassion or freedom when you left.
>
> Seems to be the case with a great many of the detractors. They keep
> calling us brainwashed cultists because we embrace the preponderance of
> the passages. And here they are 5, 10, and even 20 years later still
> complaining and being nasty because of their fears.
Well it fits my paradigm that they manifest a pseudo-eckankar and join
according their own needs. Seems they're more vested in this later
religion then they ever were on the original path. My guess is it's
crafted to suit their personalities. <sigh> But that's just my guess
given the years of listening to their rants. <sigh>
Jadoo941
>Date: 8/16/2004 9:04 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <4120D9A0...@worldnet.att.net>
>
>Rich wrote:
>>
>> "cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>>
>> > Here's a newsflash for you
>> > joe... YOU ARE NO LONGER A MEMBER OF THIS PATH! In other words, what
>> you
>> > do now with these so called threats is your choice, and not associated
>> > with this path anylonger. You sure do spend a great deal of time
>> > wrapping yourself in the worst case scenerio, hey? Too bad you didn't
>> > chose passages about love, compassion or freedom when you left.
>>
>> Seems to be the case with a great many of the detractors. They keep
>> calling us brainwashed cultists because we embrace the preponderance of
>> the passages. And here they are 5, 10, and even 20 years later still
>> complaining and being nasty because of their fears.
>
>Well it fits my paradigm that they manifest a pseudo-eckankar and join
>according their own needs. Seems they're more vested in this later
>religion then they ever were on the original path. My guess is it's
>crafted to suit their personalities. <sigh> But that's just my guess
>given the years of listening to their rants. <sigh>
Yeah, like we put a gun to your head to listen to us. Forest for the trees...
Tell me if you saw somebody's child being abused, what would you do? Go away?
You might. We won't. Everyone who belongs to Eckankra or who might belong to
Eckankra is a child of God, we all are god's kids, yes? All children deserve
to know the truth. God's kids deserve to know the whole story about Eckankra.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Why do you lie to God's children Cher?
cher
came from in these headers. Why? Because if you haven't noticed to date,
lurk never admits to making mistakes! Ever! <wink>
<childish transference projection>
> After
> > all, this is the basis of your theory on all things Paul and his mental
> > health as you see it.
>
> I don't feel I have to have to be a psychologist to render an opinion
> about Paul's psych.
But when anyone dismisses your opinion, you suddenly attack their
psychological make up? Isn't this the stuff that amateurs are made of?
Think about. ;-)
> > Or did I miss something in all the ranting you've
> > done because I didn't give you the "respect" you demand for such things
> > as this thread?
>
> Seems you did miss something. I never presented my opinion as a
> professional psychological opinion.
Oh really? You're not a professional? Then where does all this analyzing
of others come from? could it be that you're an amateur who's using what
you've read as weapons?
> >
> > > Secondly, what you are calling attacking and destroying is me mirroring
> > > the way you behave on this newsgroup. So I am glad you are having that
> > > insight....now if you can only take it a step future and see you own
> > > attacking of critics by routinely making them the issue instead of
> > > addressing the issue raised.
> >
> > Bullshit! <smile> What I'm saying to you here is that you're not a
> > psychologist and your idea about Paul is bogus. It's based on faulty
> > thinking and steeped in the process of negative free association.
>
> Actually my ideas about Paul are based upon my wisdom. These ideas are
> debatable. Telling me my theories or ideas about Paul are my projection
> or negative free association is not a debating nor is it any kind of
> refutation; it is simply making me the issue. Can't help yourself, can you?
Actually these are my opinions. Deal with it! Unlike you, I don't have
to badger people into a detailed discussion on why they don't agree.
<smile> But I do honestly see your ideas about Paul as negative free
association which I happen to see happen often on this group. There is
no proof behind what you said about Paul, only your speculations based
on your opinions. If there was substance here we'd be talking, but there
simply isn't any substance.
> I never said I was a psychologist so I don't know why you are bringing
> that up.
To remind you! It appears that you forget this so often. <smile>
> You
> > should look into what that little phrase means, by the way... it could
> > genuinely help you and the detractors a great deal. <wink>
> >
> > > I even told you I was mirroring how you eckists like to have little
> > > fireside chats about critics.
> >
> > Yeah... we all know how jealous you are of ECKists communicating with
> > each other and summarily dismissing your presence. So your point?
>
> I'm not jealous of you eckists when you do your little butt sniffing
> thing. I thought it might be revealing to you to see how it feels for
> two people to talk about you in the same vile way you eckists like to
> chat about critics.. You reacted and didn't seem to like it. Now do you
> think others like it when you eckists do it? It's all about the lessons
> you need to learn Cher. But it seems you're a bit slow on the uptake.
<childish transference projection>
> >
> > > Don't
> > > > fret. It's common with people who read about psychology but have no
> > > > first hand experiences in the application of it.
> > >
> > > This is exactly how your post come off Cher. You have book knowledge but
> > > a very low awareness level of the obvious splitting within yourself.
> >
> > <sigh> Yeah... according to you.
>
> According to anybody with a modicum of self awareness.
.... does that make you feel like a man, lurk? LOL....
> <smile> Am I less frightening to you
> > now, lurk?
>
> Honestly, you're capacity for denial is kind of scary.
Honestly, lurk? According to your world view of everyone else and how
they can't measure up to your mighty mind. <smiling> Sure...
whatever.... :-D
> >
> > > Even the letters
> > > > between Jung and Freud show respect for each other. Amateurs immediately
> > > > use psychology as a defense mechanism against those that frighten them
> > > > in life, a measure of their fears alone.
> > >
> > > Yes, this is exactly what you do when you respond defensively to critic's
> > > posts which critique eckankar or eck masters. You take it personally,
> > > become defense and start in with your psycho-blather that is amateurish.
> > > Part of being a divided person is seeing things in others that you
> > > yourself demonstrate.
> >
> > Divided person? <sigh>
>
> Yes, that's when you THINK you are one way and you behave in an
> completely different way.
Make that up all by yourself? <chuckle> And this explains why I see me
as one being and you insist I'm someone else entirely and only you know
who she is? LOL..... there's that latent guru thing surfacing in you
again. LOL..... You've never been married, have you? I would bet the
farm on that. <smiling>
> You do realize that you're attacking me
> > personally here because i think your construct of Paul's childhood is
> > pure bullshit, right?
>
> All I'm doing is taking your comments you throw my way and showing
> everybody how they apply to you more than me. Why is it attacking when I
> apply your comments to yourself and they seem to fit like a glove?
<childish transference projection>
> Saying my ideas about Paul's childhood are pure bullshit is no refutation.
How would one go about refuting bullshit, lurk? Why would one waste
their lifetime on such a thing? It's pure bullshit. Negative free
association based purely in bias. Deal with it. That's my opinion and my
advice is "learn to live with that!". <smile>
> You certainly are no threat to Eckankar or the ECK
> > Masters, lurk. The only person you're a threat to, is you. You're doing
> > exactly what you're freaking out and trying to convince me I'm doing?
>
> I'm making you the issue because you are trying so hard, so compulsively
> hard to make me the issue. I'm trying to show you have it feels to walk
> in a critic's moccasins. Everytime you object to my comments being
> attacking you are essentially objecting to your own behavior....only
> you're having trouble connecting the dots. A sign of a divided person.
<childish transference projection>
> > <sheeeesh> lurk... the best I can say about you is that you leave a
> > person feeling dizzy after trying to follow your thinking. <sigh>
>
> That's how many feel when they engage you Cher. Welcome to the world of
> responding to Cher. It ain't pretty, is it?
<childish transference projection>
> >
> > > A true indication of a
> > > > beginner. The field of psychology would never have lasted a decade in
> > > > this world if the main purpose was to use what they gleaned about human
> > > > nature as weapons against their clients. After all, what advantage does
> > > > any man take from the utter destruction of his enemy then a loss of his
> > > > own humanity?
> > >
> > > Aren't you being a little dramatic here: "Utter destruction of his
> > > enemy?" <lol>
> >
> > Oh really? What is your goal?
>
> I've probably said this about fifty times now in the last couple of
> weeks: My goal is to show you how it is to respond to Cher in the hope
> that you will get it and start addressing the issues that are raised and
> stop making critics the issue. I prefer to discuss issues not
> psychoanalysis each other. This is hardly trying to destroy you. See how
> dramatic you were being?
<childish transference projection> What you're doing here is making me
the issue because I think that your idea is pure bullshit. You're angry
that I refuse to take it seriously. So this is what I get for being
honest with you.... a taste of your childhood. <ugh>
> You have been stomping your little foot
> > here trying to tear me down to your idea of no-thing in the process of
> > coming up with ideas why I think your mind is best left to landscaping
> > and road work. You've thrown everything at me but the kitchen sink....
>
> What I have throw at you is YOU Cher. Hard to swallow, eh?
<childish transference projection>
> > in fact you've tried to use my husbands death to convince me it's me and
> > not your lack of mental acuity. <smile> Hey... I guess when you're
> > desperate then you use what you have. <lol>
>
> I referred to your husband in a theory about you that demonstrates
> exactly what you do to critics here Cher.
<childish transference projection>
> That you are outraged is ironic. You should be outraged at your own
> behavior. But you're not. You know why? Because you are a religious
> fanatic and you think it is alright to make people the issue to protect
> the fairy tale you identify with for so many years.
Outraged? Religious fanatic? Are talking about that pseudo-cher you go
around attacking so often? You know the one that lives in your fevered
imagination? The one you keep trying to convert? <grinning> See... this
is exactly the sort of process that has lead the American Psychological
Association away from the groups that focus on former members for their
information. That negative free association that goes with the so called
enemy of their thoughts. <sigh> This form of defensiveness is so
transparent, lurk. It's just pitiful that you don't realize you're
arguing with someone in your imagination! The person you're raging at
here doesn't exist except in your little version of the world. <smile>
> >
> > > I'm just giving you back your psycho-blather...only mine actually makes
> > > more sense and is on target.
> >
> > LOL.... well in your fantasy world.
>
> This is what is happening here. You're just blind to it.
Well after your last pronouncement about me, all I can say is "thank
heavens"! <wink> I sure wouldn't want to walk around in the persona of
the being you spend your life on in this newsgroup. LOL......
> >
> > > You know we could be talking issues, instead of making each other the
> > > issue. I have pleaded with you several time to make that commitment,
> > > but you have obtained.
> >
> > You're the one obsessing over me here!
>
> I guess in a way your are right. I have to be obsessive to mirror your
> obsessive behavior. It is kind of getting old and you're not getting it
> no matter how big a mirror I hold up.
<childish transference projection>
> In all your zeal to show up critics as stupid, you remain one of the
> slowest to get your own behavior I have seen. it's toss up between you
> and Rich. Internally your intolerance of your own self making a mistake
> keeps you locked into a place of never admitting you are mistaken. Why?
> Because the same shame you throw at others that make a mistake here you
> will use on yourself. So you denial kicks in an you get to forever
> remain terminally stupid. You refuse to look at how you make critics
> the issue and how your communication comes from a shaming space within
> yourself. You refuse to see the overtones of your posts of "everybody is
> stupid and I'm not" is really an outward expression of your fear to
> admit to making a mistake and a strong need to feel superior to
> compensate for feeling so small.
Well for someone who's not a professional psychologist you sure do spend
a great deal of time telling other people what's terribly wrong with
them and how unhealthy they are based solely on your hurt feelings. You
know... this almost has a female quality to it. The sort of thing you
see coming from a woman involved in a huge argument with her spouse. In
all your reading of popular self help books, have you ever bothered
reading any material on healing from broken relationships, lurk? Now
this is a serious question and not meant as a slam. I ask this because
after years of girlfriends going off the deep end against a man and
eventually all men, this is suddenly sounding very familiar! I wonder if
you've ever learned anything about learning to fight fair or what rage
does to ones sense of self worth if you are not a disciplined person?
See... there's only so much one can get out of demonizing the other
person, and then the end result comes back to haunt you. In all honestly
lurk... you really should look into this genre of self help books. I
think you'll be surprised at the levels of healing you might discover.
Just because there's a break up doesn't mean that the other person is
actually going to hell... just because you need the world to support
that hope. <sigh> Learning to see the other person as a human being with
lessons to learn, just like you have is a first step to future healthy
relationships. Now this is just a thought.... and you can rant at me all
you want but I have a strong sense there's something vital here for you
in the near future. I hope it helps.
> The net result of all this is the very thing you fear—of being seen as
> stupid— is created.
>
> > I can't for the life of figure
> > out what you think you can accomplish by obsessing over me
>
> Nor can the critics figure out what your think you accomplish by
> obsessing and being nasty towards them.
>
> but I guess
> > this just shows how you've dealt with leaving Eckankar and the leaders
> > of the path all these years. It appears to be pathological with you!
> > LOL.......
> >
> > > You must enjoy attempting the "utter destruction" of your enemy and to
> > > have such reactions come back to you or else you wouldn't do it. Why do
> > > you seek to destroy critics here (your words)? Why do you continue to
> > > collude with
> > > people to support your core self hatred?
> >
> > Well hon, take a look at what you've thrown at me so far in this thread!
>
> Yes I've throw a lot of CHER towards Cher.
<childish transference projection>
> > Go ahead... take a look at what you've lobbed in my direction for what
> > could only appear to normal human beings as the behavior of an abusive
> > man.
>
> Good to see you think it is abusive, now if you would only see it in
> yourself and see how you are abusive to others.
Because I refuse to take your idea about Paul seriously? <sigh> Lurk,
you have more invested in this issue here then I have! <smile> I don't
need to bring your entire supposed life into the mix and prove that
everyone hates you as much as you seem to believe I do. <sigh> Look, if
you want to make a difference here, then start with your attitude about
other human beings. Try to imagine for just once in your life that
they're not disposable creatures but rather the property of God. Their
ideas are up for grabs and can be argued with, but no where is it
written that the utter destruction of their character makes you
something better then them! That's a life lesson, lurk. Free of charge.
<wink>
> Gawd, you are the worst kind of abusive person because your abusiveness
> happens on a unconscious level. You have no awareness of you nastiness.
> Even when I act like you and analyze you and use psychology on you like
> you do to others, you simply do not get it. Again, everytime you call me
> abusive you are calling yourself abusive, only you don't know it.
<childish transference projection>
> In all honesty.... look at what you've posted and see what you can
> > find that hasn't been deeply steeped in the most destructive behavior.
> > Now for just a moment, imagine that this is how lurk approaches life.
> > Imagine for a moment that this is what lurk honestly believes is
> > critical thinking.
>
> Making people the issue is not critical thinking, so why do you do it Cher?
Just because this is what you're reacting to here doesn't mean it's
carved in stone. Do I find some of the things posted here as absolute
crap? Oh most definitely! Is there an unwritten rule against saying so?
So far only in the world of detractors with so much at stake! If you
present a plausible idea, I'll discuss it. But don't expect me to
pretend that what you present is worth such effort just because you
throw a tantrum and assault me personally for not taking you seriously.
Grow up!
> I for one can't imagine lurk having children after
> > seeing how your mind works. Now that's a sobering thought. Outside your
> > box, there is a whole world, and this is very likely exactly how you
> > approach it. <shudder>
So there's no children? I'm not surprised.... that's where people learn
the skills of forgiveness and compassion, through people they love
deeply. Likely no long term relationships to speak of either from what
I've seen of your lack of skills in fighting fair. A rich and fulfilling
life is it's own reward, lurk. Try to find some of your answers in the
real world surrounded by genuine relationships that offer you new tests
in life. See if you can learn what it means to accept the flaws in
others as well as their graces. See if you can find out what makes a
heart tick. <smile>
> > > Those are the questions that might be good to ask yourself. I mean
> > > really....all you have to do is stick with the issue. But you can't!
> > > Know why? Because of your compulsive religious addict and can not help
> > > yourself! You pain controls your responses.
> >
> > I'm divided/split self with self hatred and compulsive religious addict
> > with pain?
>
> Yes.
Well that accounts for your raging then. Did it ever occur to you that I
might think of you as Soul? A very young one, but Soul all the same. Did
it ever occur to you that most human beings don't automatically imagine
the worst they can conjure up to represent the person they disagree
with? It's a thought lurk.... you might want to try contemplating that
one sometime. The world isn't your enemy.... it might even hold friends
and people you disagree with but still respect. It's a very large world,
lurk.
> > All because I honestly believe your idea about Paul is based
> > exactly in your behavior towards me in this thread?
>
> No, because you can not address the issue raised and compulsive make
> people this issue. Look at yourself: Even when I point out how you make
> me and others the issue you continue to do it.
I can't help that what you're doing is so obvious. You aren't raising an
intelligent idea about Paul and when I suggest to you that it's not
Paul's pathology but yours you go into this endless temper tantrum. Now
imagine that just because you're having a temper tantrum it's not about
the other person? That the only rage is the rage in you?
> And when I make you the issue to show you how you act, you call it abusive.
Yeah, well I can point out these things and not have tear you down to
dirt to prove what I think you actually are so that you'll submit to my
wrath! LOL.... See? There's a difference there lurk. LOL.....
> LOL..... How many
> > teachers did you plot to take out in high school, lurk? LOL......
> >
> > > That's why I often suggest you doing some personal growth work. You need
> > > not be interested in any kind of religious transcendent states when you
> > > have a self system based upon self hatred that causes heavy emotions and
> > > fixed views. Do a little fearless self exploration and become aware of
> > > your shame and self hatred. I guarantee you will not be asking people
> > > for url's and definitions of self hatred to learn about it. You will
> > > feel it, experience it and know its power first hand.
> >
> > Gee... and will I end up like you? <shudder> I think I'll pass!
>
> Pussy.
LOL....
> > LOL...... Seems the only shame i have is the shame you've tried to bury
> > me in since I told you that I thought your idea about Paul was more
> > about your pathology then his!
>
> Believe me Cher, the shame and self hatred you exhibit here in your
> posts are not the result of me telling you about it. This is lifetime
> stuff you are hurling at people here.
And of course let's all ignore the elephant in the room.... the reality
that being thought of as stupid is the temper tantrum that lurk is
having. Let's not pay attention to the fact that lurk has no experiences
in dealing with relationships in a healthy and healing way. So where
would that shame be coming from again? Hmmm? <wink>
> I'm more convinced now that I was right
> > then when I first said so. I don't know which parent did this to you,
> > but there are laws against such things. <sigh> Good luck old boy!
> > Someday you might find happiness somehow.
>
> She continues on with the analyzing. This is her defense.
Well like it or not, lurk... I have life experience that isn't factored
into the one dimensional being you attack here and call cher. Thank
heavens. <wink>
> I think you need to reread Astral's post on the definition of self hatred.
I did read it. It looks like you found a little friend. I'm sure so long
as you two agree, then you'll be happy to support this sort of behavior
between you. I just want to be somewhere else should you two have a
falling out. LOL......
cher
>
> cher wrote:
> >
> > Lurk... I owe you an apology. Apparently you believe there's hope that
> > I'll see your idea about Paul's childhood as worth addressing. I had
> > hoped that I made it clear to you in this lastest experience of your
> > abusive obsessive behavior that I think your idea about Paul is your
> > pathology. If you need an example of what I mean, take a look at your
> > idea about Paul and then reread what you've said to me in this thread.
> > The answers are here.
>
> I presented a theory about paul's self hatred and tied it to his
> childhood experiences and you responded by calling it a projection of my
> own pathology and then went on a rant. In response to your rant, I began
> to make you the issue to give you a taste of your own medicine. My
> behvior towards you cher is mirroring your anyalzing and making me the
> issue. It seems you don't like it when people do to you what you do to
> them. In fact you call it abuse. That should give you a clue about
> yourself and your self hated. Shut your computer off and go do some real
> personal growth work!
>
> Lurk
Rant? Okay... I guess you'd see it that way given how much you have
wrapped up in your so called theory. But that doesn't change the reality
that a theory cannot hold up if all it's built upon is negative free
association and supposition based on bias. Science doesn't work this
way. So you can have your little temper tantrum from now til doomsday,
it won't make your theory worthy of discussion. It's still based on your
own pathology which is evident in your endless temper tantrum.
cher
>
> >Subject: Re: when detractors stoop to using widowhood as a weapon... <sigh>
> >From: cher gruen...@worldnet.att.net
> >Date: 8/16/2004 9:04 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <4120D9A0...@worldnet.att.net>
> >
> >Rich wrote:
> >>
> >> "cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
> >>
> >> > Here's a newsflash for you
> >> > joe... YOU ARE NO LONGER A MEMBER OF THIS PATH! In other words, what
> >> you
> >> > do now with these so called threats is your choice, and not associated
> >> > with this path anylonger. You sure do spend a great deal of time
> >> > wrapping yourself in the worst case scenerio, hey? Too bad you didn't
> >> > chose passages about love, compassion or freedom when you left.
> >>
> >> Seems to be the case with a great many of the detractors. They keep
> >> calling us brainwashed cultists because we embrace the preponderance of
> >> the passages. And here they are 5, 10, and even 20 years later still
> >> complaining and being nasty because of their fears.
> >
> >Well it fits my paradigm that they manifest a pseudo-eckankar and join
> >according their own needs. Seems they're more vested in this later
> >religion then they ever were on the original path. My guess is it's
> >crafted to suit their personalities. <sigh> But that's just my guess
> >given the years of listening to their rants. <sigh>
>
> Yeah, like we put a gun to your head to listen to us. Forest for the trees...
True... I could just put you on block sender! <grin>
> Tell me if you saw somebody's child being abused, what would you do? Go away?
Well that depends doesn't it? What if I was hyper sensitive the use of
physical punishment and over reacted towards parents based on what I
perceived as abuse? Hmmmm? See.... it isn't enough to ask these sorts of
questions but one has to accept that they become part of the question
when they ask it. <sigh> So there are actually women who have been
treated badly in relationships who go around attacking men based on
their experiences. Would this mean that I take their word for what they
see in men? Get my drift here?
As to child abuse? Well I have reported someone once for child abuse.
They had locked their child in a closet because she wouldn't stop
crying. But this wasn't the sound of a temper tantrum... it was the cry
of genuine pain. The case was investigated and it turned out that the
child had an ear infection that had gone untreated and her ear drum
burst. The authorities opened a case file on this couple and made sure
the child had medical treatment immediately.
> You might. We won't. Everyone who belongs to Eckankra or who might belong to
> Eckankra is a child of God, we all are god's kids, yes? All children deserve
> to know the truth. God's kids deserve to know the whole story about Eckankra.
Well i've never heard of this path Eckankra, but that doesn't sound as
though you have much respect for the group or those associated with it.
I half expect that this truth you are addressing here is so mired in
myth and urban legend that perhaps most children just shake their heads
and walk away? As I suggested earlier, it could be that your mission
from God is all in your head? <wink>
> Why is this so hard to understand?
Perhaps your inability to speak english?
> Why do you lie to God's children Cher?
Do I? Why do you? You're the one who seems to believe that you have a
message from God for these children. <wink>
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> arelurker wrote:
> >
> > cher wrote:
> > >
> > > Lurk... I owe you an apology. Apparently you believe there's hope that
> > > I'll see your idea about Paul's childhood as worth addressing. I had
> > > hoped that I made it clear to you in this lastest experience of your
> > > abusive obsessive behavior that I think your idea about Paul is your
> > > pathology. If you need an example of what I mean, take a look at your
> > > idea about Paul and then reread what you've said to me in this thread.
> > > The answers are here.
> >
> > I presented a theory about paul's self hatred and tied it to his
> > childhood experiences and you responded by calling it a projection of my
> > own pathology and then went on a rant. In response to your rant, I began
> > to make you the issue to give you a taste of your own medicine. My
> > behvior towards you cher is mirroring your anyalzing and making me the
> > issue. It seems you don't like it when people do to you what you do to
> > them. In fact you call it abuse. That should give you a clue about
> > yourself and your self hated. Shut your computer off and go do some real
> > personal growth work!
> >
> > Lurk
>
> Rant? Okay... I guess you'd see it that way given how much you have
> wrapped up in your so called theory.
I call it a rant because you went off on a tangent about me and making
me the issue. I think the word rants applies.
But that doesn't change the reality
> that a theory cannot hold up if all it's built upon is negative free
> association and supposition based on bias.
If it can't hold up, then attack the theory and not me. See the difference?
Science doesn't work this
> way. So you can have your little temper tantrum from now til doomsday,
> it won't make your theory worthy of discussion. It's still based on your
> own pathology which is evident in your endless temper tantrum.
If it is not worthy of discussion then it isn't worthy enough for you to
personally attack me by saying I was projecting my pathology.
You're being dishonest here. When Rose or Bee say something I find
unworthy of responding to, you know what? I don't respond and don't
personally attack them.
See how that works?
I think you're being dishonest with youself and others here.
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> And of course lurk doesn't explain where the date of Wed, 31 Dec 1969
> came from in these headers. Why? Because if you haven't noticed to date,
> lurk never admits to making mistakes! Ever! <wink>
I owe you the reason my software messed up? Get over yourself and your
mother hen attitude.
You really nailed me on that one! <lol>
Now to the real issues below....
No when you begin personal attacks to dismiss my opinion, then I attack
back to teach the feeble minded person a lesson.
>
> > > Or did I miss something in all the ranting you've
> > > done because I didn't give you the "respect" you demand for such things
> > > as this thread?
> >
> > Seems you did miss something. I never presented my opinion as a
> > professional psychological opinion.
>
> Oh really? You're not a professional?
Not a professional psychologist as you keep intimating.
> Then where does all this analyzing
> of others come from?
From my keen intellect, experience and wisdom.
> could it be that you're an amateur who's using what
> you've read as weapons?
I use psychological concepts and analysis to respond to your psycho-blather.
You don't seem to like it when the table is turned on you.
>
> > >
> > > > Secondly, what you are calling attacking and destroying is me mirroring
> > > > the way you behave on this newsgroup. So I am glad you are having that
> > > > insight....now if you can only take it a step future and see you own
> > > > attacking of critics by routinely making them the issue instead of
> > > > addressing the issue raised.
> > >
> > > Bullshit! <smile> What I'm saying to you here is that you're not a
> > > psychologist and your idea about Paul is bogus. It's based on faulty
> > > thinking and steeped in the process of negative free association.
> >
> > Actually my ideas about Paul are based upon my wisdom. These ideas are
> > debatable. Telling me my theories or ideas about Paul are my projection
> > or negative free association is not a debating nor is it any kind of
> > refutation; it is simply making me the issue. Can't help yourself, can you?
>
> Actually these are my opinions. Deal with it!
Oh I see...you call them opinions when you direct these "making the
person the issue" comment towards someone else. In response to your
psycho-blather, when I express my "opinions" and make you the issue,
then you see it as personal attacks and start squealing.
Unlike you, I don't have
> to badger people into a detailed discussion on why they don't agree.
> <smile> But I do honestly see your ideas about Paul as negative free
> association which I happen to see happen often on this group. There is
> no proof behind what you said about Paul, only your speculations based
> on your opinions. If there was substance here we'd be talking, but there
> simply isn't any substance.
Not your trying to justify expressing your personal attacks (opinions).
That's what religious fanatics do.
> > I never said I was a psychologist so I don't know why you are bringing
> > that up.
>
> To remind you! It appears that you forget this so often. <smile>
Whatever...it is stupid comment.
>
> > You
> > > should look into what that little phrase means, by the way... it could
> > > genuinely help you and the detractors a great deal. <wink>
> > >
> > > > I even told you I was mirroring how you eckists like to have little
> > > > fireside chats about critics.
> > >
> > > Yeah... we all know how jealous you are of ECKists communicating with
> > > each other and summarily dismissing your presence. So your point?
> >
> > I'm not jealous of you eckists when you do your little butt sniffing
> > thing. I thought it might be revealing to you to see how it feels for
> > two people to talk about you in the same vile way you eckists like to
> > chat about critics.. You reacted and didn't seem to like it. Now do you
> > think others like it when you eckists do it? It's all about the lessons
> > you need to learn Cher. But it seems you're a bit slow on the uptake.
>
> <childish transference projection>
My experiment worked. You got a taste of your own medicine except now
you are saving face by proclaiming you can't taste the medicine.
>
> > >
> > > > Don't
> > > > > fret. It's common with people who read about psychology but have no
> > > > > first hand experiences in the application of it.
> > > >
> > > > This is exactly how your post come off Cher. You have book knowledge but
> > > > a very low awareness level of the obvious splitting within yourself.
> > >
> > > <sigh> Yeah... according to you.
> >
> > According to anybody with a modicum of self awareness.
>
> .... does that make you feel like a man, lurk? LOL....
Now just a regular guy pointing out the obvious.
>
> > <smile> Am I less frightening to you
> > > now, lurk?
> >
> > Honestly, you're capacity for denial is kind of scary.
>
> Honestly, lurk?
Yes these exchanges in this thread kind of demonstrates your capacity
for denial.
It's the old deny and pretend show. That is part of being a divided
person. That's why it is important to do some personal growth work to
close the gap a bit. You won't have the heavy burden of the upkeep on
the dishonesty.
According to your world view of everyone else and how
> they can't measure up to your mighty mind. <smiling> Sure...
> whatever.... :-D
>
> > >
> > > > Even the letters
> > > > > between Jung and Freud show respect for each other. Amateurs immediately
> > > > > use psychology as a defense mechanism against those that frighten them
> > > > > in life, a measure of their fears alone.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, this is exactly what you do when you respond defensively to critic's
> > > > posts which critique eckankar or eck masters. You take it personally,
> > > > become defense and start in with your psycho-blather that is amateurish.
> > > > Part of being a divided person is seeing things in others that you
> > > > yourself demonstrate.
> > >
> > > Divided person? <sigh>
> >
> > Yes, that's when you THINK you are one way and you behave in an
> > completely different way.
>
> Make that up all by yourself? <chuckle> And this explains why I see me
> as one being and you insist I'm someone else entirely and only you know
> who she is?
Nah, other people can see your grand canyon split. You unwittingly
flaunt it everyday on this newsgroup.
LOL..... there's that latent guru thing surfacing in you
> again. LOL..... You've never been married, have you? I would bet the
> farm on that. <smiling>
>
> > You do realize that you're attacking me
> > > personally here because i think your construct of Paul's childhood is
> > > pure bullshit, right?
> >
> > All I'm doing is taking your comments you throw my way and showing
> > everybody how they apply to you more than me. Why is it attacking when I
> > apply your comments to yourself and they seem to fit like a glove?
>
> <childish transference projection>
You can't answer the question so you do this avoidance thing.
That in and of itself points to the answer that your a hypocrite that
suffers from psychological dissonance.
>
> > Saying my ideas about Paul's childhood are pure bullshit is no refutation.
>
> How would one go about refuting bullshit, lurk?
If it is bullshit you should be able to easier pull it apart and tear
up my theory.
Just look at the way I do that with Marman's bullshit. I deconstruct his
bullshit to the point where he runs and hides under his cultic rock.
> Why would one waste
> their lifetime on such a thing?
You certainly waste a lot of time making me the issue instead of
addressing the issue, so this is not a sincere question.
It's pure bullshit. Negative free
> association based purely in bias. Deal with it. That's my opinion and my
> advice is "learn to live with that!". <smile>
Yep its an opinion when you get personal and an attack when I get
personal with you.
See you hypocrisy?
>
> > You certainly are no threat to Eckankar or the ECK
> > > Masters, lurk. The only person you're a threat to, is you. You're doing
> > > exactly what you're freaking out and trying to convince me I'm doing?
> >
> > I'm making you the issue because you are trying so hard, so compulsively
> > hard to make me the issue. I'm trying to show you have it feels to walk
> > in a critic's moccasins. Everytime you object to my comments being
> > attacking you are essentially objecting to your own behavior....only
> > you're having trouble connecting the dots. A sign of a divided person.
>
> <childish transference projection>
Again, Cher avoids these very clear-headed lessons I have offered her.
Like all religious fanatics, they vacillate between abusing others in the
name of their religion and feeling persecuted when others object to
their abuse.
>
> > > <sheeeesh> lurk... the best I can say about you is that you leave a
> > > person feeling dizzy after trying to follow your thinking. <sigh>
> >
> > That's how many feel when they engage you Cher. Welcome to the world of
> > responding to Cher. It ain't pretty, is it?
>
> <childish transference projection>
Can't seem to answer the pertinent questions? Taking a page out of
Marman's book here of his avoidance strategies.
> > >
> > > > A true indication of a
> > > > > beginner. The field of psychology would never have lasted a decade in
> > > > > this world if the main purpose was to use what they gleaned about human
> > > > > nature as weapons against their clients. After all, what advantage does
> > > > > any man take from the utter destruction of his enemy then a loss of his
> > > > > own humanity?
> > > >
> > > > Aren't you being a little dramatic here: "Utter destruction of his
> > > > enemy?" <lol>
> > >
> > > Oh really? What is your goal?
> >
> > I've probably said this about fifty times now in the last couple of
> > weeks: My goal is to show you how it is to respond to Cher in the hope
> > that you will get it and start addressing the issues that are raised and
> > stop making critics the issue. I prefer to discuss issues not
> > psychoanalysis each other. This is hardly trying to destroy you. See how
> > dramatic you were being?
>
> <childish transference projection> What you're doing here is making me
> the issue because I think that your idea is pure bullshit.
I'm making you the issue because I wanted to teach you a lesson and give
you back what you give to others.
You're having a hard time accepting how you act aren't you?
That's the split, honey.
You're angry
> that I refuse to take it seriously. So this is what I get for being
> honest with you.... a taste of your childhood. <ugh>
Now you venturing into delusions of grandeur.
Better get to a professional before you think you can change the weather
and hear voices telling you to jump of the bridge.
>
> > You have been stomping your little foot
> > > here trying to tear me down to your idea of no-thing in the process of
> > > coming up with ideas why I think your mind is best left to landscaping
> > > and road work. You've thrown everything at me but the kitchen sink....
> >
> > What I have throw at you is YOU Cher. Hard to swallow, eh?
>
> <childish transference projection>
Cher is still having a hard time facing Cher. Her self righteous
religious fanaticism blinds her, eh?
>
> > > in fact you've tried to use my husbands death to convince me it's me and
> > > not your lack of mental acuity. <smile> Hey... I guess when you're
> > > desperate then you use what you have. <lol>
> >
> > I referred to your husband in a theory about you that demons trates
> > exactly what you do to critics here Cher.
>
> <childish transference projection>
It is exactly what you do to critics her day in and day out.
But I see you are really attached to this deny and pretend thing.
>
> > That you are outraged is ironic. You should be outraged at your own
> > behavior. But you're not. You know why? Because you are a religious
> > fanatic and you think it is alright to make people the issue to protect
> > the fairy tale you identify with for so many years.
>
> Outraged? Religious fanatic? Are talking about that pseudo-cher you go
> around attacking so often?
Now I'm talking about the bitch Cher who post to critics everyday and
makes them the issue and is all nicey nicey to eckists, (except for Spark)
and even kisses Marman's butt thinking he is the great savior of a
dysfunctional cult.
Are you really denying that you don't make critics the issue?
Maybe ask some critics for feedback.
> You know the one that lives in your fevered
> imagination? The one you keep trying to convert?
Yeah, I'm trying to convert you to addressing the issue instead of
personally attack people who post critical commentary about eckankar.
Seems reasonable.
<grinning> See... this
> is exactly the sort of process that has lead the American Psychological
> Association away from the groups that focus on former members for their
> information.
I don't know anything about this and it doesn't have anything to do with
whether you habitually make critics the issue and personally attack them
in your self righteous religious quest.
That negative free association that goes with the so called
> enemy of their thoughts. <sigh> This form of defensiveness is so
> transparent, lurk. It's just pitiful that you don't realize you're
> arguing with someone in your imagination!
There's that splitting again. Cher can't imagine herself personally
attacking critics and making them the issue. Ha! That has got to be the
biggest joke in the history of this newsgroup. My gawd Cher, you even
offend many eckists that come by here with the way you personally attack
and make critics the issue.
The person you're raging at
> here doesn't exist except in your little version of the world. <smile>
>
> > >
> > > > I'm just giving you back your psycho-blather...only mine actually makes
> > > > more sense and is on target.
> > >
> > > LOL.... well in your fantasy world.
> >
> > This is what is happening here. You're just blind to it.
>
> Well after your last pronouncement about me, all I can say is "thank
> heavens"! <wink> I sure wouldn't want to walk around in the persona of
> the being you spend your life on in this newsgroup. LOL......
I know, that is why you put all your bitch qualities into shadow and why
we all have to suffer for you being an unconscious ass. You posts reek
with hatred and anger towards critics.
>
> > >
> > > > You know we could be talking issues, instead of making each other the
> > > > issue. I have pleaded with you several time to make that commitment,
> > > > but you have obtained.
> > >
> > > You're the one obsessing over me here!
> >
> > I guess in a way your are right. I have to be obsessive to mirror your
> > obsessive behavior. It is kind of getting old and you're not getting it
> > no matter how big a mirror I hold up.
>
> <childish transference projection>
Yes this continue denial on your part is proving that you are not
getting it. Those shadow parts are hard to face. Go get some real help.
>
> > In all your zeal to show up critics as stupid, you remain one of the
> > slowest to get your own behavior I have seen. it's toss up between you
> > and Rich. Internally your intolerance of your own self making a mistake
> > keeps you locked into a place of never admitting you are mistaken. Why?
> > Because the same shame you throw at others that make a mistake here you
> > will use on yourself. So you denial kicks in an you get to forever
> > remain terminally stupid. You refuse to look at how you make critics
> > the issue and how your communication comes from a shaming space within
> > yourself. You refuse to see the overtones of your posts of "everybody is
> > stupid and I'm not" is really an outward expression of your fear to
> > admit to making a mistake and a strong need to feel superior to
> > compensate for feeling so small.
>
> Well for someone who's not a professional psychologist you sure do spend
> a great deal of time telling other people what's terribly wrong with
> them and how unhealthy they are based solely on your hurt feelings.
I swap impressions when someone indicates they want to swap impressions
of each other.
You gave your personal opinion (what you call attacking when someone
does it to you) about me instead of address the issue and and I gave you
my personal. We continue in this vain because you refuse to quit and
can't help but to compulsively make me the issue.
You
> know... this almost has a female quality to it. The sort of thing you
> see coming from a woman involved in a huge argument with her spouse. In
> all your reading of popular self help books, have you ever bothered
> reading any material on healing from broken relationships, lurk? Now
> this is a serious question and not meant as a slam. I ask this because
> after years of girlfriends going off the deep end against a man and
> eventually all men, this is suddenly sounding very familiar!
My assessment of your behavior here should sound familiar to you since
you do this every day with critics.
How thick head can one be. I think you are winning awards in being the
densest person on the newsgroup.
I show you day in and day out your making critics the issue and you
simply deny and pretend.
I wonder if
> you've ever learned anything about learning to fight fair or what rage
> does to ones sense of self worth if you are not a disciplined person?
> See... there's only so much one can get out of demonizing the other
> person, and then the end result comes back to haunt you.
This is what is happening in this exchange: your making critics the
issue is coming back to haunt you...only you're too stupid to learn anything.
In all honestly
> lurk... you really should look into this genre of self help books. I
> think you'll be surprised at the levels of healing you might discover.
> Just because there's a break up doesn't mean that the other person is
> actually going to hell... just because you need the world to support
> that hope. <sigh> Learning to see the other person as a human being with
> lessons to learn, just like you have is a first step to future healthy
> relationships.
I'm seeing you as a human being with lessons to learn, only you're too
stupid to learn them when they are right in front of your face.
Now this is just a thought.... and you can rant at me all
> you want but I have a strong sense there's something vital here for you
> in the near future. I hope it helps.
>
> > The net result of all this is the very thing you fear—of being seen as
> > stupid— is created.
> >
> > > I can't for the life of figure
> > > out what you think you can accomplish by obsessing over me
> >
> > Nor can the critics figure out what your think you accomplish by
> > obsessing and being nasty towards them.
> >
> > but I guess
> > > this just shows how you've dealt with leaving Eckankar and the leaders
> > > of the path all these years. It appears to be pathological with you!
> > > LOL.......
> > >
> > > > You must enjoy attempting the "utter destruction" of your enemy and to
> > > > have such reactions come back to you or else you wouldn't do it. Why do
> > > > you seek to destroy critics here (your words)? Why do you continue to
> > > > collude with
> > > > people to support your core self hatred?
> > >
> > > Well hon, take a look at what you've thrown at me so far in this thread!
> >
> > Yes I've throw a lot of CHER towards Cher.
>
> <childish transference projection>
Still can't accept and take responsibility for you behavior, eh?
>
> > > Go ahead... take a look at what you've lobbed in my direction for what
> > > could only appear to normal human beings as the behavior of an abusive
> > > man.
> >
> > Good to see you think it is abusive, now if you would only see it in
> > yourself and see how you are abusive to others.
>
> Because I refuse to take your idea about Paul seriously?
Because day in and day out your make critics the issue instead of
addressing the issues and express personally attack them (what your one
side calls expressing your opinion).
<sigh> Lurk,
> you have more invested in this issue here then I have! <smile> I don't
> need to bring your entire supposed life into the mix and prove that
> everyone hates you as much as you seem to believe I do. <sigh>
You know, the only reason I do that is to show you how vile you act when
you bring critics' life into the mix.
You don't like it, eh?
Look, if
> you want to make a difference here, then start with your attitude about
> other human beings. Try to imagine for just once in your life that
> they're not disposable creatures but rather the property of God. Their
> ideas are up for grabs and can be argued with, but no where is it
> written that the utter destruction of their character makes you
> something better then them! That's a life lesson, lurk. Free of charge.
What an unconscious ass. Everything you just said applies to you and is
what I have been telling your for a few days now. I said debate the
issues and don't make critics the issue which your do day in and day
out.
You're too stupid and unconscious to continue in an exchange.
> <wink>
>
> > Gawd, you are the worst kind of abusive person because your abusiveness
> > happens on a unconscious level. You have no awareness of you nastiness.
> > Even when I act like you and analyze you and use psychology on you like
> > you do to others, you simply do not get it. Again, everytime you call me
> > abusive you are calling yourself abusive, only you don't know it.
>
> <childish transference projection>
Watch Cher deny and pretend.
>
> > In all honesty.... look at what you've posted and see what you can
> > > find that hasn't been deeply steeped in the most destructive behavior.
> > > Now for just a moment, imagine that this is how lurk approaches life.
> > > Imagine for a moment that this is what lurk honestly believes is
> > > critical thinking.
> >
> > Making people the issue is not critical thinking, so why do you do it Cher?
>
> Just because this is what you're reacting to here doesn't mean it's
> carved in stone. Do I find some of the things posted here as absolute
> crap? Oh most definitely! Is there an unwritten rule against saying so?
Look at how Cher denies her putrid behavior day in and day out on this
newsgroup.
She attacks and make critics the issue and she rationalizes here as
expressing her opinion.
Self righteous religious fanatic is what we have here.
> So far only in the world of detractors with so much at stake! If you
> present a plausible idea, I'll discuss it.
As I said earlier, if I did not present a plausible idea you wouldn't not
felt compelled to attack and would have simply dismantled the issue
raised.
But don't expect me to
> pretend that what you present is worth such effort just because you
> throw a tantrum and assault me personally for not taking you seriously.
Assault you personally when I give you back what you give out to others.
Divided hypocrite....go get help.
> Grow up!
>
> > I for one can't imagine lurk having children after
> > > seeing how your mind works. Now that's a sobering thought. Outside your
> > > box, there is a whole world, and this is very likely exactly how you
> > > approach it. <shudder>
>
> So there's no children? I'm not surprised.... that's where people learn
> the skills of forgiveness and compassion, through people they love
> deeply. Likely no long term relationships to speak of either from what
> I've seen of your lack of skills in fighting fair. A rich and fulfilling
> life is it's own reward, lurk. Try to find some of your answers in the
> real world surrounded by genuine relationships that offer you new tests
> in life. See if you can learn what it means to accept the flaws in
> others as well as their graces. See if you can find out what makes a
> heart tick. <smile>
Cher continues with her psychho-blather here, but she doesn't see as
making me the issue or personally attacking me, but sees it as
expressing her opinion.
Unbelievable, she denies in one paragraph and continues to demonstrate in
the next paragraph.
Divided persons are difficult to talk to.
>
> > > > Those are the questions that might be good to ask yourself. I mean
> > > > really....all you have to do is stick with the issue. But you can't!
> > > > Know why? Because of your compulsive religious addict and can not help
> > > > yourself! You pain controls your responses.
> > >
> > > I'm divided/split self with self hatred and compulsive religious addict
> > > with pain?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Well that accounts for your raging then.
I'm simply point out your behavior Cher you demonstrate day in and day out.
> Did it ever occur to you that I
> might think of you as Soul?
So how does that help when you make critics the issue and personally
attack them when you disagree with them?
A very young one, but Soul all the same. Did
> it ever occur to you that most human beings don't automatically imagine
> the worst they can conjure up to represent the person they disagree
> with?
Really? So when you disagreed with my theory about Paul's childhood hurt
and pain being influential with constructing eckankar and said I was
projection my pathology, were you automatically imagining the worst you
could conjuring up to represent the person you disagree with?
It's a thought lurk.... you might want to try contemplating that
> one sometime. The world isn't your enemy.... it might even hold friends
> and people you disagree with but still respect. It's a very large world,
> lurk.
Perhaps you will find this place one day when you see how disgusting you
act towards critics here by making them the issue and personally
attacking them.
>
> > > All because I honestly believe your idea about Paul is based
> > > exactly in your behavior towards me in this thread?
> >
> > No, because you can not address the issue raised and compulsive make
> > people this issue. Look at yourself: Even when I point out how you make
> > me and others the issue you continue to do it.
>
> I can't help that what you're doing is so obvious. You aren't raising an
> intelligent idea about Paul and when I suggest to you that it's not
> Paul's pathology but yours you go into this endless temper tantrum.
Saying that I'm projecting my pathology is not a refutation or engaging
in debate, it is making me the issue and personally attacking me, eh?
Why are you having trouble seeing this. Is it because you would then
turn on yourself.
Now
> imagine that just becuse you're having a temper tantrum it's not about
> the other person? That the only rage is the rage in you?
>
> > And when I make you the issue to show you how you act, you call it abusive.
>
> Yeah, well I can point out these things and not have tear you down to
> dirt to prove what I think you actually are so that you'll submit to my
> wrath! LOL.... See? There's a difference there lurk. LOL.....
There's a difference in the abuse you dole out and the abuse I give back
to you?
Why you are laughing out loud is beyond me.
>
> > LOL..... How many
> > > teachers did you plot to take out in high school, lurk? LOL......
> > >
> > > > That's why I often suggest you doing some personal growth work. You need
> > > > not be interested in any kind of religious transcendent states when you
> > > > have a self system based upon self hatred that causes heavy emotions and
> > > > fixed views. Do a little fearless self exploration and become aware of
> > > > your shame and self hatred. I guarantee you will not be asking people
> > > > for url's and definitions of self hatred to learn about it. You will
> > > > feel it, experience it and know its power first hand.
> > >
> > > Gee... and will I end up like you? <shudder> I think I'll pass!
> >
> > Pussy.
>
> LOL....
>
> > > LOL...... Seems the only shame i have is the shame you've tried to bury
> > > me in since I told you that I thought your idea about Paul was more
> > > about your pathology then his!
> >
> > Believe me Cher, the shame and self hatred you exhibit here in your
> > posts are not the result of me telling you about it. This is lifetime
> > stuff you are hurling at people here.
>
> And of course let's all ignore the elephant in the room.... the reality
> that being thought of as stupid is the temper tantrum that lurk is
> having.
I'm perfectly calm as I give you back what you give out Cher. Instead of
addressing this issue I raised you wanted to make it personal by saying
I was projecting my pathology. So I thought i would give you a taste of
your own medicine and make you squeal a bit. Now you seem to think
> Let's not pay attention to the fact that lurk has no experiences
> in dealing with relationships in a healthy and healing way.
Huh?
> So where
> would that shame be coming from again? Hmmm? <wink>
Cher, I have dealt with the shame in my life by doing some real personal
growth work. I can tell when someone has and has not dealt with their
shame. You are definitely shamed based communicator. Part of the shame
is that you have a hard time admitting even to the shame....you're
ashamed of having shame. Perhaps this explains your continue insistent
to deny and pretend.
So after all this, do you still want to generally communicate with me by
making me the issue, or do you want to put all the analysis aside and
simple deal with the substance of the issues that are brought forth? I
would appreciate an answer to this question. A no answer means to
continue with the personal attacks on each other. Your's don't bother me
since they are rendered from a low awareness. However, you seem to be
disturbed by my analysis of you. Shall we continue?
Lurk
a
cher
>
> cher wrote:
> >
> > And of course lurk doesn't explain where the date of Wed, 31 Dec 1969
> > came from in these headers. Why? Because if you haven't noticed to date,
> > lurk never admits to making mistakes! Ever! <wink>
>
> I owe you the reason my software messed up? Get over yourself and your
> mother hen attitude.
>
> You really nailed me on that one! <lol>
>
> Now to the real issues below....
See what i mean? Well in case it hasn't dawned on you lurk, this is
generally a symptom of your computer getting ready to tank on you!
There's this little battery inside that has a shelf life and when it
gets close to tanking it starts to play snarky tricks with your time
function.
As to the rest of this post, the temper tantrum persists... and frankly
I'm tired of playing with you. Have a good day, lurk. <smile>
cher
Well tangent I can understand in this context. <sigh> Lurk.... do you
have a clue how boring this has become? Just take a guess. <smile> This
doesn't change the reality of what you are attempting to do here, by
negative free association leading to demonizing. That's a truly nasty
habit that leads to becoming a full fledged snarky human being by the
way. <smile>
> But that doesn't change the reality
> > that a theory cannot hold up if all it's built upon is negative free
> > association and supposition based on bias.
>
> If it can't hold up, then attack the theory and not me. See the difference?
It's not my fault that you take what I said as a personal attack.
Apparently you don't feel comfortable with people looking at your
pathology. <smile> That doesn't change the reality that what you said
about Paul was nothing short of you're own pathology on this group to
date. Negative free association to demonizing another based on your
given biases. Other people would just call you a fantatic and leave it
at that. There's method to the madness of spelling it out like this for
you. <sigh>
> Science doesn't work this
> > way. So you can have your little temper tantrum from now til doomsday,
> > it won't make your theory worthy of discussion. It's still based on your
> > own pathology which is evident in your endless temper tantrum.
>
> If it is not worthy of discussion then it isn't worthy enough for you to
> personally attack me by saying I was projecting my pathology.
Lurk, get a clue... you're not the best mind on this board! No matter
how much you pout and have tantrums, it won't make your ideas any more
worthy of discussion. In this instance t is about your pathology! And
that pahtology is transparent here. DUH! <sigh>
> You're being dishonest here. When Rose or Bee say something I find
> unworthy of responding to, you know what? I don't respond and don't
> personally attack them.
Well they aren't generally making broad sweeping generalizations based
on personal bias about the religion or it's leaders, either. Does that
strike you as perhaps a point to take into consideration? Cause just
like everyone else here I can put you on block sender. In fact if you
don't like what I say you can put me on block sender too. See how easy
that is?
> See how that works?
>
> I think you're being dishonest with youself and others here.
Well that's not the first negative conclusion you've associated with me!
Your opinions of me are pretty much moot as far as I'm concerned, lurk.
You have't had a positive thing to say about me or to me in years.
Frankly there's just no carrot there from you worth bothering with that
would put you in a position of me caring what you think!
> Lurk
>
arelurker
arelurker
Yes I do. It become boring the moment you began to make me the issue.
Swapping impressions with you is boring because your impressions of me
are ill informed and my impressions of you are right on the money,
except you're too blind to see understand them
This
> doesn't change the reality of what you are attempting to do here, by
> negative free association leading to demonizing. That's a truly nasty
> habit that leads to becoming a full fledged snarky human being by the
> way. <smile>
>
> > But that doesn't change the reality
> > > that a theory cannot hold up if all it's built upon is negative free
> > > association and supposition based on bias.
> >
> > If it can't hold up, then attack the theory and not me. See the difference?
>
> It's not my fault that you take what I said as a personal attack.
And it is not my fault you took my mirroring comments as an attack.
You're so stupid Cher.
> Apparently you don't feel comfortable with people looking at your
> pathology. <smile>
Not when I'm talking about Paul. Duh. If I have biases they will show up
in the theory and you can deconstruct the theory and ideas I presented,
not me personally.
That's like me saying apparently you don't like talking about how you
drove your husband to his death when you battered him your your self
hatred you bounce off him all those years.
> That doesn't change the reality that what you said
> about Paul was nothing short of you're own pathology on this group to
> date.
Attacking me personally is not debating the issue that was raised.,
Seems you have a hard time getting that through your thinkc head. You're
still trying to justify your self righteous cultic reactions to my
theory by claiming you were right.
Negative free association to demonizing another based on your
> given biases. Other people would just call you a fantatic and leave it
> at that. There's method to the madness of spelling it out like this for
> you. <sigh>
Your spelling out is nothing more than characterizing me in an attacking
way instead of dealing with the issue I raised. You think you might get
this anytime in this century.
>
> > Science doesn't work this
> > > way. So you can have your little temper tantrum from now til doomsday,
> > > it won't make your theory worthy of discussion. It's still based on your
> > > own pathology which is evident in your endless temper tantrum.
> >
> > If it is not worthy of discussion then it isn't worthy enough for you to
> > personally attack me by saying I was projecting my pathology.
>
> Lurk, get a clue... you're not the best mind on this board!
We see Cher's aspiration here, eh? Too bad. Her cultishness makes her
stupid to qualify for queen of the board.
No matter
> how much you pout and have tantrums, it won't make your ideas any more
> worthy of discussion. In this instance t is about your pathology! And
> that pahtology is transparent here. DUH! <sigh>
Again, if it was not worthy of discussion, then you would not have tried
to kill the messenger with your psycho-blather. You can't even read what
I write now and respond. You are responding like an automaton and a
broken record.
>
> > You're being dishonest here. When Rose or Bee say something I find
> > unworthy of responding to, you know what? I don't respond and don't
> > personally attack them.
>
> Well they aren't generally making broad sweeping generalizations based
> on personal bias about the religion or it's leaders, either.
That's your argument? You're going to argue that I don't respond to them
because they don't make broad sweeping generalizations?
You are arguing for arguing sake. This is ridiculous.
Does that
> strike you as perhaps a point to take into consideration? Cause just
> like everyone else here I can put you on block sender. In fact if you
> don't like what I say you can put me on block sender too. See how easy
> that is?
>
> > See how that works?
> >
> > I think you're being dishonest with youself and others here.
>
> Well that's not the first negative conclusion you've associated with me!
Well that's because you habitually make critics the issue you fool!
> Your opinions of me are pretty much moot as far as I'm concerned, lurk.
> You have't had a positive thing to say about me or to me in years.
Actually I have told you would better make you case for whatever serious
points you want to bring up if your learn to communicate without
insulting and making people the issue. I was trying to help you
strengthen your anti-anticult arguments. I thought you had some valid
points that were getting lost in all your rancor. Perhaps you forgot.
Lurk
cher
me bored.
cher
change the reality that the issue you presented about the pathology of
Paul was more about your own pathology. You can stomp your feet and
scream and make a huge rucus in the middle of room, but it doesn't
change reality one bit. It's about your pathology, period. And that
pathology is transparent to everyone but apparently you! <sigh> Deal
with it. And have a nice day! <sigh>
mahav...@yahoo.com
> <mahav...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
> > >
> > > The detractors are far, far nastier as a whole.
> >
> > Who's nastiest of all?
> >
> > My vote would be Paul Twitchell, for all those Eck threats in the
> > Shariyat and Eck Discourses.
> >
> > Hard to think of anything nastier than a guy who sells himself as the
> > true God-man and tells you you're going to hell is you leave him "for
> > any reason."
>
>
> It doesn't seem to bother most people. Maybe that's because they aren't
> narrow-minded literalists?
Most people are in Eckankar? Don't think so.
Try, true-believers aren't bothered by "if you leave the cult you go
to hell" threats because of their love for their cult.
mahav...@yahoo.com
Hard to think of anything crappier than a guy who sells himself as the
true God-man and tells you you're going to hell if you leave him "for
any reason" (IWL).
If you'd like to show us where Paulji shades his black and white
threats, go ahead. We've been waiting years for it, and we can wait a
little longer.
>
> Love
>
> Michael
> >
> >
mahav...@yahoo.com
Hard to think of anything crappier than a guy who sells himself as the
true God-man and tells you you're going to hell if you leave him "for
any reason" (IWL).
If you'd like to show us where Paulji shades his black and white
threats, go ahead. We've been waiting for years for it, we can wait a
little longer.
mahav...@yahoo.com
>
>
> Seems to be the case with a great many of the detractors. They keep
> calling us brainwashed cultists because we embrace the preponderance of
> the passages. And here they are 5, 10, and even 20 years later still
> complaining and being nasty because of their fears.
Hard to think of anything nastier than a guy who sells himself as the
true God-man and tells you you're going to hell if you leave him "for
any reason" (IWL).
Not even an Eck Clergyman from Hawaii into phone threats is nastier
than that.
If you'd like to show us where Paulji shades his black and white
threats, go ahead. We've been waiting 20 years for it, we can wait a
little longer.
mahav...@yahoo.com
> calling us brainwashed cultists because we embrace the preponderance of
> the passages. And here they are 5, 10, and even 20 years later still
> complaining and being nasty because of their fears.
Hard to think of anything nastier than a guy who sells himself as the
true God-man and tells you you're going to hell if you leave him "for
any reason" (IWL).
Not even an Eck Clergyman that's into phone threats is nastier than
Jadoo941
>> Why do you lie to God's children Cher?
>
>Do I? Why do you? You're the one who seems to believe that you have a
>message from God for these children. <wink>
I think you know eckankar is full of lies and deep down you feel guilty about
it.
How about posting something about Paul's well documented biographical lies as
found in In My Soul, I am Free and see how it feels to tell the truth for a
change.
Michael Wallace
"Ken" <kah...@att.not> wrote in message
Does the term "Zebra" mean anything to you?
It bears a resemblance to a horse with a faulty paint job...
This means that certain people can get something else to flog that is
familar, yet new all at the same time. What a joy!
Now that we have de-generated to this level on sillyness, I feel we should
run for parliament. Looking for Giy Fawkes ...
Love
Michael
>
>
>
>
Michael Wallace
All those fellows in his band are GAY BOYS! I always thought he had funny
hats...
love
Michael
"Jim McK" <dickn...@guyofyourdreams.com> wrote in message
news:2ea39f97.04081...@posting.google.com...
> Come back to me Al. I love how you grab my gristle. Jim
>
> Al Radzik <al_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<4a70b$411bdc97$18e1a310$80...@allthenewsgroups.com>...
> > > "Al Radzik" <al_r...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
> > I have a bashing license.
> > Alf
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> LOL.... enjoy yourself little boy. This temper tantrum of yours has left
> me bored.
That's convenient....when I show how you clearly make critics the issue
and give you a taste of your own medicine you resort to irrational
comments about me being in a temper tantrum.
Your big mouth is not so big now that you tasted your own medicine. Kind
of bitter isn't it.
Even Cher can't stomach Cher.
I'll go down in the annals of a.r.e. as the person who shut your big
mouth up! As everybody knows, that is quite a feat... rivaling one of
wonders of the world.
Lurk
<Unsnipped for those who want to see what Cher is about>
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> Well lurk... no matter how much you whine and cry, it isn't going to
> change the reality that the issue you presented about the pathology of
> Paul was more about your own pathology.
And this is no justification for your making me the issue when I pose a
theory about Paul. When I make you the issue in response, you call it
attacking. Can you see your double standards at play here? It is an
opinion when you make me the issue and it is attacking when I make you
the issue.
You can stomp your feet and
> scream and make a huge rucus in the middle of room, but it doesn't
> change reality one bit. It's about your pathology, period.
I know, you have trouble considering Paul being dysfunctional...that
would rock your little cultic world. Much easier to make me the issue.
However, this is no refutation, just a personal attack according to you
standards. But when you are a part of a religious cult as you are, you
can justify personally attacking critics.
And that
> pathology is transparent to everyone but apparently you! <sigh> Deal
> with it.
Yeah yeah, more psycho-blather from the low awareness newsgroup ameba.
Lurk
Ken
<mahav...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
Too simplistic for words mahajoe.
I don't believe that you or anyone who leaves Eckankar are going to
hell, unless that's something that you create for yourself in your own
life. Get a clue. Your Eckankar is not mine nor anyone else that I
know who is actually living the path.
You fuzzy headed little old black and white thinker you.
Ken
Ken
<mahav...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:9d5f56f7.04081...@posting.google.com...
> "Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote in message
> >
> > Seems to be the case with a great many of the detractors. They keep
> > calling us brainwashed cultists because we embrace the preponderance of
> > the passages. And here they are 5, 10, and even 20 years later still
> > complaining and being nasty because of their fears.
>
> Hard to think of anything nastier than a guy who sells himself as the
> true God-man and tells you you're going to hell if you leave him "for
> any reason" (IWL).
" "for any reason" (IWL)"
What kind of quote is that?
So now you've devolved into taking sentence FRAGMENTS out of
context and using them to make your point?
That's just plain freakin' sad, Joe.
cher
>
> >
> >> Why do you lie to God's children Cher?
> >
> >Do I? Why do you? You're the one who seems to believe that you have a
> >message from God for these children. <wink>
>
> I think you know eckankar is full of lies and deep down you feel guilty about
> it.
Well apparently I don't live in your head, so it seems to me that what
you're projecting here is more about your sense of guilt. Perhaps it
would help you more if you dealt with what it is that left you feeling
this is significant? Why do you feel guilty?
> How about posting something about Paul's well documented biographical lies as
> found in In My Soul, I am Free and see how it feels to tell the truth for a
> change.
Do I get to post the lies that david lane and the detractors came up
with too? The ones that were used to exaggerate the story behind this
book? Hmm? <smile> Because as I recall this section of the detractor
bible it seems to me that there's a whole section of stories from two
former members about Brad and Paul that have been left untouched by
detractors regardless of what anyone posts to this group. I know....
before I step into the preformed arguments waiting for what I say, how
about you posting what it is that you think is significant in this
instance and we'll work from there. What do you say there jadoo? Does
that narrow the field a bit here? I can feel them beneath the surface...
the conversation already taken place and the preconceived answers
waiting to leap out in accusations. So let's just cut to the chase and
lance this one instead of taking the long painful approach to your hissy
fit, okay? <smile>
Ken
"Michael Wallace" <ph...@phurphy.com> wrote in message news:4121...@news1.veridas.net...
>
> > > For Joe's sake, please keep all responses to Black and White agreements. It
> > > is either ALL black or ALL white... If you can just remember that, everyone
> > > will get on fine.
> > >
> > > The fact that he talks crap is NOT the issue... It is whether we agree that
> > > it is ALL crap or otherwise that is important <G>
> >
> > Absolutist? Well then, I'm absolutely sure that yes indeed, it's ALL
> > black and white!
> >
> > Wait, that's not what you had in mind?
>
>
> Does the term "Zebra" mean anything to you?
>
> It bears a resemblance to a horse with a faulty paint job...
That's exactly right. From the typical super-critical detractor
point of view, Zebras are obviously defective. What good is a
striped horse?
>
> This means that certain people can get something else to flog that is
> familar, yet new all at the same time. What a joy!
It's almost more than I can stand!
>
> Now that we have de-generated to this level on sillyness, I feel we should
> run for parliament. Looking for Giy Fawkes ...
Run? No runnining in the Halls! We shall all WALK safely.
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> Jadoo941 wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >> Why do you lie to God's children Cher?
> > >
> > >Do I? Why do you? You're the one who seems to believe that you have a
> > >message from God for these children. <wink>
> >
> > I think you know eckankar is full of lies and deep down you feel guilty about
> > it.
>
> Well apparently I don't live in your head, so it seems to me that what
> you're projecting here is more about your sense of guilt. Perhaps it
> would help you more if you dealt with what it is that left you feeling
> this is significant? Why do you feel guilty?
>
> > How about posting something about Paul's well documented biographical lies as
> > found in In My Soul, I am Free and see how it feels to tell the truth for a
> > change.
>
> Do I get to post the lies that david lane and the detractors came up
> with too?
Lane and many detractors have invited eckists to post the so called lies
in Lane book all along.
Go ahead and post the lies. Warning: Difference of opinion isn't a lie.
The ones that were used to exaggerate the story behind this
> book? Hmm? <smile> Because as I recall this section of the detractor
> bible it seems to me that there's a whole section of stories from two
> former members about Brad and Paul that have been left untouched by
> detractors regardless of what anyone posts to this group.
That Brad wrote Twitchell's books? If that is it, there is no credible
evidence supporting this notion.
Lurk
cher
bringing down the oasis site. Will we find it filed with alfie's big hit
song? <chuckle>
cher
Paul is ignorant crap! If you want to make that about you then fine. I
simply stated that it is representative of your pathology in that you
use negative free association based in your personal biases to form such
things. That's it. Period. Deal with it.
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> Sure.... ranks right up there with bringing down Eckankar and alfie
> bringing down the oasis site. Will we find it filed with alfie's big hit
> song? <chuckle>
Yeah, shutting up your hateful piehole is an accomplishment.
Lurk
cher
Proof that self realization is an ogoing experience. <wink>
cher
Now that would make a great bumper sticker! <smile>
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> Look lurk, no offesne meant to you personally, but your theory about
> Paul is ignorant crap! If you want to make that about you then fine.
Calling it ignorant crap is not a counter argument and simply reveals
your own ignorance.
I
> simply stated that it is representative of your pathology in that you
> use negative free association based in your personal biases to form such
> things. That's it. Period. Deal with it.
Yeah, that is making me the issue instead of formulating an intelligent
response to my theory that was supported by Paul's biographical information.
When I make you the issue in response to you making me the issue, you
squeal like a pig and whine about being attacked. How come it is
attacking when someone does it to you and not attacking when you do it
to me?
Here' s the short answer: your a big mouth cunt.
Lurk
cher
Well Ken... that's how they discover the plagiarisms they tout so loud.
<wink> A word here, a list of adjectives there, a group of generalized
prepositional phrases and before you know it, the web page is filled
with suspect information. <wink>
cher
>
> cher wrote:
> >
> > Jadoo941 wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >> Why do you lie to God's children Cher?
> > > >
> > > >Do I? Why do you? You're the one who seems to believe that you have a
> > > >message from God for these children. <wink>
> > >
> > > I think you know eckankar is full of lies and deep down you feel guilty about
> > > it.
> >
> > Well apparently I don't live in your head, so it seems to me that what
> > you're projecting here is more about your sense of guilt. Perhaps it
> > would help you more if you dealt with what it is that left you feeling
> > this is significant? Why do you feel guilty?
> >
> > > How about posting something about Paul's well documented biographical lies as
> > > found in In My Soul, I am Free and see how it feels to tell the truth for a
> > > change.
> >
> > Do I get to post the lies that david lane and the detractors came up
> > with too?
>
> Lane and many detractors have invited eckists to post the so called lies
> in Lane book all along.
>
> Go ahead and post the lies. Warning: Difference of opinion isn't a lie.
Well then I suggest that you re-evalute the information that you base
your attacks on this path around! I'm glad that you've come to recognize
the difference between lies and opinions! <smile> As to lane's lies?
Read the archives... this group was built on this issue. <wink>
> The ones that were used to exaggerate the story behind this
> > book? Hmm? <smile> Because as I recall this section of the detractor
> > bible it seems to me that there's a whole section of stories from two
> > former members about Brad and Paul that have been left untouched by
> > detractors regardless of what anyone posts to this group.
>
> That Brad wrote Twitchell's books? If that is it, there is no credible
> evidence supporting this notion.
That and several other lies/rumors that are floating around the
archives. There's no credible evidence supporting most of the stories
from detractors, surrounding Paul. Seems that distinction between lies
and evidence gets lost in the fundamentalism.
cher
cher
we're seeing here is also part of your pathology. I'll make a mental
note! ROFLMAO......
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> arelurker wrote:
> >
> > cher wrote:
> > >
> > > Jadoo941 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> Why do you lie to God's children Cher?
> > > > >
> > > > >Do I? Why do you? You're the one who seems to believe that you have a
> > > > >message from God for these children. <wink>
> > > >
> > > > I think you know eckankar is full of lies and deep down you feel guilty about
> > > > it.
> > >
> > > Well apparently I don't live in your head, so it seems to me that what
> > > you're projecting here is more about your sense of guilt. Perhaps it
> > > would help you more if you dealt with what it is that left you feeling
> > > this is significant? Why do you feel guilty?
> > >
> > > > How about posting something about Paul's well documented biographical lies as
> > > > found in In My Soul, I am Free and see how it feels to tell the truth for a
> > > > change.
> > >
> > > Do I get to post the lies that david lane and the detractors came up
> > > with too?
> >
> > Lane and many detractors have invited eckists to post the so called lies
> > in Lane book all along.
> >
> > Go ahead and post the lies. Warning: Difference of opinion isn't a lie.
>
> Well then I suggest that you re-evalute the information that you base
> your attacks on this path around! I'm glad that you've come to recognize
> the difference between lies and opinions! <smile>
Paul's biogrphical information is a lie. Paul using other people's
spiritual experiences and plagiarizing is a lie.
As to lane's lies?
> Read the archives... this group was built on this issue. <wink>
No one proved that Lane lie in his book.
>
> > The ones that were used to exaggerate the story behind this
> > > book? Hmm? <smile> Because as I recall this section of the detractor
> > > bible it seems to me that there's a whole section of stories from two
> > > former members about Brad and Paul that have been left untouched by
> > > detractors regardless of what anyone posts to this group.
> >
> > That Brad wrote Twitchell's books? If that is it, there is no credible
> > evidence supporting this notion.
>
> That and several other lies/rumors that are floating around the
> archives. There's no credible evidence supporting most of the stories
> from detractors, surrounding Paul. Seems that distinction between lies
> and evidence gets lost in the fundamentalism.
Yeah I just said there is no evidence to support it, so what is the big deal?
Lurk
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> Wow... did someone take off with your lithium, lurk? LOL....
I'm not on lithium. But you have to admit, I shut down your piehole when
I introduced your to yourself.
Left you speechless to enounter your own self hatred. Now run along and
go do some real personal growth work.
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> LOL... so when do we graduate to poopy head?
I don't know, when do we graduate to you addressing the issues?
LOL..... Apparently what
> we're seeing here is also part of your pathology. I'll make a mental
> note! ROFLMAO......
What we're seeing is your own pathology reflected back to you.
You are laughing at yourself.
cher
Excuse me? That's a pretty broad stroke there bucky! <sigh>
> As to lane's lies?
> > Read the archives... this group was built on this issue. <wink>
>
> No one proved that Lane lie in his book.
Again... broad strokes and nothing offered. Seems to me that Doug's book
brought out a great many sins of omission from David Lane.... like the
truth on many issue. <wink>
> >
> > > The ones that were used to exaggerate the story behind this
> > > > book? Hmm? <smile> Because as I recall this section of the detractor
> > > > bible it seems to me that there's a whole section of stories from two
> > > > former members about Brad and Paul that have been left untouched by
> > > > detractors regardless of what anyone posts to this group.
> > >
> > > That Brad wrote Twitchell's books? If that is it, there is no credible
> > > evidence supporting this notion.
> >
> > That and several other lies/rumors that are floating around the
> > archives. There's no credible evidence supporting most of the stories
> > from detractors, surrounding Paul. Seems that distinction between lies
> > and evidence gets lost in the fundamentalism.
>
> Yeah I just said there is no evidence to support it, so what is the big deal?
Oh my... did someone wake up and discover that David P is full of it?
<smile> Don't seem to want to talk about how his little tales of the
universe universe were spread through this group, david's book or ford's
new religion? Fascinating. <smile>