Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Being Direct
61 views
Skip to first unread message
Etznab
May 23, 2015, 8:53:05 AM5/23/15
to
Most of the topics here revolve around people having made things up and about others believing in fictions to be true, or laboring to make others conform and tow the party line.
Paul Twitchell and Eckankar evidently churned out reams of plagiarisms under the assumed auspices of Eckankar masters and / or divine beings. Many people had grown to relish the content and - not knowing the actual truth - passed on some misinformation to others. The leader of Eckankar, Harold Klemp, looked at the founder's (Paul Twitchell's) manuscripts and later gave a number of talks about the founder and his writings. Even years after those 1980s talks he repeatedly visited the subject, and in the Eckankar quarterly publication.
Defending the actions of those having created, propagated and massaged pseudo man-made history and religion cannot, and probably should not, be done here on this group by assumptions lacking substance, by spin, or by making up of even more lies. It happens nevertheless, but I would caution against doing this on account of the results which are strewn all over these a.r.e. pages and the Internet.
What inevitably happens is that people turn to personal attacks. Especially those who had taken the writings literally and cannot let go of their own self made reality and wanting to share it with others. I would say share what is your own religious belief, but do so in a way that allows others the same and do so in a way that is mature, respectful and loving. I think others would put it this same way and I am not the only own to share this viewpoint.
Since this forum has mostly text it becomes all important the ways messages are articulated. People can't see visual expressions which would normally add context to clarify meaning to add so much more.
The main point I am making here is the number of posts on this group and what the majority have been about. The topic of plagiarism and making up of things and the ramifications of that have entertained this group from the very beginning and does so even today. One the one side are people wanting to know the truth and on the other people wanting to minimize the art of making things up as if "everybody does it", or all religions have done this and plagiarism is not a big deal. (With "monkeys" in the middle scurrying up and down the ladder of "I'm only here to make a scene" and srcew what any of you believe.)
Uhh ... Hello? Can we now see why Harold Klemp, the leader of Eckankar, gave a series of talks about Paul Twitchell and his sources years ago? Can we now see why Doug Marman has shared information that further supports what Harold had done and why?
The real problem, IMO, is the larger mass of people making up the social conscience and how they almost unconsciously magnify the actions of others simply by parroting words without giving the reasons, the context and the real motivations behind them. Like Fox News and other information outlets streaming data 24/7 and it filling the heads of millions. Those who read religious and New Age scriptures without checking the facts are only getting a very limited and biased version of reality. In fact, reporters have even reported on false information and then they were duty bound to recant it.
Enter Eckankar, and the sheer number of plagiarisms, uncertain biographies, dubious information and other (in need of correction) literature. Do religions have a duty to conform with not knowingly making things up and "twisting of people's minds" to make them believe what was never really true to begin with?
Like Doug said, perhaps it is true that Harold was forthright and shared what he learned as "soon" as he had learned it. But Harold, and no leader of a flock, can really keep all the sheep in line 24/7. Especially when the sheep far, far, outnumber the shepherd and his ability to know what is going on. For this reason, perhaps, RESA's were put into place years ago in order to report on things on a local level. But there again, just like 2 senators and / or so many representatives to represent everybody in a single state, the ratio is very lopsided. The point being that no matter what the leader says and the number of times they say it, the flock is always in danger of "coloring outside the lines" and the picture going uncorrected by the teacher.
Fortunately there are those few persons with stamina to maintain a sense of relative civility on a group such as a.r.e. and not quit, or go away because some "fundamentalists", or "fanatics" in an over-exuberant desire to defend personal belief at the cost of sacrificing truth are hell-bent on personally attacking them and almost every word they say.
It matters the way that things are argued and defended here, especially when the defense is secretly "harboring" some pseudo history and religion that many people have come to believe as literally true; as if organization, empire, or a religion depended on people not finding out the total truth for themselves.
I couldn't be more direct.
Paul Twitchell and Eckankar evidently churned out reams of plagiarisms under the assumed auspices of Eckankar masters and / or divine beings. Many people had grown to relish the content and - not knowing the actual truth - passed on some misinformation to others. The leader of Eckankar, Harold Klemp, looked at the founder's (Paul Twitchell's) manuscripts and later gave a number of talks about the founder and his writings. Even years after those 1980s talks he repeatedly visited the subject, and in the Eckankar quarterly publication.
Defending the actions of those having created, propagated and massaged pseudo man-made history and religion cannot, and probably should not, be done here on this group by assumptions lacking substance, by spin, or by making up of even more lies. It happens nevertheless, but I would caution against doing this on account of the results which are strewn all over these a.r.e. pages and the Internet.
What inevitably happens is that people turn to personal attacks. Especially those who had taken the writings literally and cannot let go of their own self made reality and wanting to share it with others. I would say share what is your own religious belief, but do so in a way that allows others the same and do so in a way that is mature, respectful and loving. I think others would put it this same way and I am not the only own to share this viewpoint.
Since this forum has mostly text it becomes all important the ways messages are articulated. People can't see visual expressions which would normally add context to clarify meaning to add so much more.
The main point I am making here is the number of posts on this group and what the majority have been about. The topic of plagiarism and making up of things and the ramifications of that have entertained this group from the very beginning and does so even today. One the one side are people wanting to know the truth and on the other people wanting to minimize the art of making things up as if "everybody does it", or all religions have done this and plagiarism is not a big deal. (With "monkeys" in the middle scurrying up and down the ladder of "I'm only here to make a scene" and srcew what any of you believe.)
Uhh ... Hello? Can we now see why Harold Klemp, the leader of Eckankar, gave a series of talks about Paul Twitchell and his sources years ago? Can we now see why Doug Marman has shared information that further supports what Harold had done and why?
The real problem, IMO, is the larger mass of people making up the social conscience and how they almost unconsciously magnify the actions of others simply by parroting words without giving the reasons, the context and the real motivations behind them. Like Fox News and other information outlets streaming data 24/7 and it filling the heads of millions. Those who read religious and New Age scriptures without checking the facts are only getting a very limited and biased version of reality. In fact, reporters have even reported on false information and then they were duty bound to recant it.
Enter Eckankar, and the sheer number of plagiarisms, uncertain biographies, dubious information and other (in need of correction) literature. Do religions have a duty to conform with not knowingly making things up and "twisting of people's minds" to make them believe what was never really true to begin with?
Like Doug said, perhaps it is true that Harold was forthright and shared what he learned as "soon" as he had learned it. But Harold, and no leader of a flock, can really keep all the sheep in line 24/7. Especially when the sheep far, far, outnumber the shepherd and his ability to know what is going on. For this reason, perhaps, RESA's were put into place years ago in order to report on things on a local level. But there again, just like 2 senators and / or so many representatives to represent everybody in a single state, the ratio is very lopsided. The point being that no matter what the leader says and the number of times they say it, the flock is always in danger of "coloring outside the lines" and the picture going uncorrected by the teacher.
Fortunately there are those few persons with stamina to maintain a sense of relative civility on a group such as a.r.e. and not quit, or go away because some "fundamentalists", or "fanatics" in an over-exuberant desire to defend personal belief at the cost of sacrificing truth are hell-bent on personally attacking them and almost every word they say.
It matters the way that things are argued and defended here, especially when the defense is secretly "harboring" some pseudo history and religion that many people have come to believe as literally true; as if organization, empire, or a religion depended on people not finding out the total truth for themselves.
I couldn't be more direct.
Kinpa
May 24, 2015, 7:57:06 PM5/24/15
to
From the amount if ridicule that must be dealt with by anyone that sees things differently than you and sean do, I have to say that what you say seems rather false. The fact remains that plagiarism is ONLY plagiarism. I'm sorry of you disagree, and you can, but there simply is NO direct evidence that that plagiarism proves ANY other conclusion other than that the plagiarism happened. That is where that line of thought stops, and that is gdue to your own standards that require evidence and whenever possible, physical or historic proof. The lack of any other piece of writing being attributed to Rebazar Tarzs or any other ECK Master, simply does not prove that none of them exist, nor does it prove that they are fictional. So why do you both insist without end, that this is the case without so much as a single shred of direct evidence?
You are simply not opened to learning anything about ANY of it, the motivation here seems to be to convert anyone possible into accepting YOUR point of view, one that you simply are unable to prove! In this respect you are NO different than Paul Twitchell using plagiarisms to write ECK books. If you were in a court of law, neither of you would be able to prove that no such Masters exist, or that Paul Twitchell fictionalized them. That is the simple fact of the matter. You expect others to adopt your point of view, based on absolutely nothing other than the same plagiarism and arguments based on that, that you both have used for years. Have you noticed that no one new ever comes here to speak to either of you about this?
Being more direct than you were above, I state these things as the FACTS that they are, it is very very simple. I have seen you both claim that you can't prove a negative...if this is so, then why do you continue to claim to be able to prove a negative that you obviously BELIEVE, but for which you have NO direct evidence??? The very idea is silly...
Henosis Sage
May 25, 2015, 2:45:21 AM5/25/15
to
ZERO FACTS ALL DELUSION
"you can't prove a negative... "
BUT MATTILDA HAS BEEN DEMANDING OTHERS PROVE NEGATIVES SINCE SEPT 2014
YOU ARE AN IDIOT MATT SHARPE - AND BORING
re ""and neither of you are %100 correct""
NO DICK HEAD IT'S " 100% "
The Chicago Manual of Style - Numbers
Q. In prose, when writing percentages, which is correct: 10 percent; ten percent, or 10%?
A. Chicago prefers the use of numerals for all numbers used as part of percentages, but use the word "percent" for humanistic copy and the
"%" symbol for scientific and statistical copy:
humanistic:
10 percent (but spell out "10" if it begins the sentence)
scientific, statistical:
10%
http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Numbers/faq0005.html
LIKE DOH HOMER !
"In the command processors COMMAND.COM (DOS) and CMD.EXE (OS/2 and Windows), %1, %2,... stand for the first, second,... parameters of a batch file."
The percent sign (%) is the symbol used to indicate a percentage, a number or ratio as a fraction of 100.
For example, not "Sales increased by 24% over 2006", but rather "Sales increased by 24 percent over 2006".
percentage rises
seem to give us a lot of problems: an increase from 3% to 5% is a 2 percentage point increase or a 2-point increase, not a 2% increase; any sentence saying "such and such rose or fell by X%"
WELL WHO KNEW? EVERYONE BESIDES MATT SHARPE
The Idiot can't type 100% correctly - and still believes in his own CERTAINTY
and ALL KNOWING depraved obnoxious psycho beliefs.
B O T H B O R I N G n S T U P I D
RE: "..but there simply is NO direct evidence that that plagiarism proves ANY
other conclusion other than that the plagiarism happened."
THAT'S IRRATIONAL, ILLOGICAL, UNTRUE AND LIKELY DRIVEN BY INSANE/PSYCHOTIC PSYCHOLOGICALLY DISTURBED STATES
YOU ARE A FOOL MATTILDA "You are simply not opened to learning anything... "
(shrug)
Henosis Sage
May 25, 2015, 3:54:08 AM5/25/15
to
On Monday, 25 May 2015 09:57:06 UTC+10, Kinpa wrote:
SO FUNNY
RE:
"The lack of any other piece of writing being attributed to Rebazar Tarzs
or any other ECK Master, simply does not prove that none of them exist, nor
does it prove that they are fictional.
"So why do you both insist without end, that this is the case without so much
as a single shred of direct evidence? "
ARE YOU DRUNK OR ON DRUGS MATTILDA?
or any other ECK Master, simply does not prove that none of them exist, nor
does it prove that they are fictional.
"So why do you both insist without end, that this is the case without so much
as a single shred of direct evidence? "
OR SIMPLY LOST INSIDE A WORLD OF YOUR OWN?
SOMETHING IS NOT 100% RIGHT THAT IS FOR SURE!
( read this bit real s l o w l y )
I HAVE INSISTED NO SUCH A THING - EVER - YOU'VE MADE IT UP YOURSELF
OTHERWISE PROVE IT WITH A QUOTE REF OR STFU - YOU ARE 100% WRONG
I HAVE NEVER EVER SAID, IN MY ENTIRE LIFE, NOT HERE, NOT ANYWHERE, THAT:
"The lack of any other piece of writing being attributed to Rebazar Tarzs
or any other ECK Master, simply does not prove that none of them exist, nor
does it prove that they are fictional."
OTHERWISE PROVE IT WITH A QUOTE REF OR STFU - YOU ARE 100% WRONG
---------
WHY DO INSIST ON CONTINUALLY LYING ABOUT THINGS YOU SAY I HAVE DONE, OR SAID?
WHY DO YOU PUBLISH TO THE WHOLE WORLD THAT I "am a criminal" WHEN I AM NOT?
WHAT INSANITY AND DELSUIONS MAKE YOU BELIEVE YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO CLAIM ALL THE ENDLESS LIES YOU KEEP SPEWING ABOUT ME?
ARE YOU FUCKING INSANE OR WHAT MATT SHARPE?
Do you even understand the question?
FUCK OFF, seriously!
You're an idiot.
I have been telling you and showing you the EVIDENCE FOR THIS FACT
since last Sept 2014.
WILL YOU NEVER LEARN?
NO.
100% YOUR PROBLEM TO DEAL WITH.
BAD CHOICE.
VERY BAD CHOICE.
YOU DO NOT HAVE AN OUNCE OF HUMAN DECENCY OR INTEGRITY
A LYING DEFAMING SCUMBAG
PROBABLY A PSYCHOTIC SOCIOPATH IMHO
(shrug)
Kinpa
May 25, 2015, 9:43:34 AM5/25/15
to
Message has been deleted
Etznab
May 25, 2015, 9:52:06 AM5/25/15
to
"[...] He [Rebazar Tarzs] does not in any way mind that you do not believe he exists [... .]"
I responded to Kinpa like this:
"Who told you this? Are you now speaking for Rebazar Tarzs? Because if you are speaking for Rebazar Tarzs it has been duly noted."
This is how Kinpa responded to me:
"Did I say I was speaking for him? Have you no common sense boy? Seriously? I speak for myself, and what I stated about him happens to be true regardless of anyone's opinions or claims, common sense, how? Is he angry or carrying a grudge against you for insisting he is fictional? I doubt it, unless he has come and spoken directly to you about that...I would say that you flatter yourself yet again by believing that your opinion is THAT important to anyone but yourself....opinions are like assholes...EVERYONE has one, and NO ONE wants to know about anyone else's! It's a very simple thing to understand! Do you have a desire to closely inspect the aroma of another's anus? Then why would you believe that anyone else cares so much about yours? Opinions are NO different, everyone has one and they almost ALWAYS smell like shit!"
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.religion.eckankar/asshole|sort:date/alt.religion.eckankar/LORhlwIM23A/ZQ0TQeFywVQJ
Now this is one thing I was drawing attention to. Not plagiarism necessarily, but the act of people making up fictions; and in order to use them against others.
I called him on it and Kinpa wrote to me like that. I point blank asked if he, Kinpa, was speaking for Rebazar Tarzs. Then I read ...
"Did I say I was speaking for him? Have you no common sense boy? Seriously? I speak for myself, and what I stated about him happens to be true regardless of anyone's opinions ... ."
What you stated about Rebazar Tarzs may be true in your mind, but the moment you go and use him as a mouthpiece to speak about others I think this is more than even Paul Twitchell did after putting plagiarized words as if coming from the mouth of Rebazar Tarzs and others.
What I have written about directly is about the creation of pseudo history and religion and using lies against other people. I pointed this out as the core issue on this group and cautioned against doing it.
How many people do you know were mistreated, disrespected, tortured and even killed in the name of religion (and / or another person's ideology) and the justification supported by charges that were based on the same pseudo history, religion and lies?
I'm not defending puppet masters worked by others to carry out an agenda. I am clarifying context and pulling the curtain on imposters. So when you go and try to animate Rebazar Tarzs like you did, I can show that the strings are attached to you!
Kinpa
May 25, 2015, 9:53:36 AM5/25/15
to
On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 6:45:21 AM UTC, Henosis Sage wrote:
I am not the insane on, YOU are, and you continually prove this daily! Keep going seanella! We're all watching!
Message has been deleted
Etznab
May 25, 2015, 9:57:24 AM5/25/15
to
Kinpa
May 25, 2015, 10:01:23 AM5/25/15
to
At this point, I don't much care what you say or accuse of, you simply are not smart as you would like everyone to believe, and just like seanella, you post things you do not actually understand such as etymology dictionary entries in an attempt to display a mental prowess that doesn't even exist....By the way, how was the cookout yesterday? LOL
Henosis Sage
May 26, 2015, 2:20:00 AM5/26/15
to
SO FUNNY - 100% YADDA YADDA YADDA BY A RAVING IDIOT TALKING ENDLESS SHIT
RE: "The lack of any other piece of writing being attributed to Rebazar Tarzs
or any other ECK Master, simply does not prove that none of them exist, nor
does it prove that they are fictional.
"So why do you both insist without end, that this is the case without so much
as a single shred of direct evidence? "
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/NGpI3f7axKY/-27DPOwWgTkJ
does it prove that they are fictional.
"So why do you both insist without end, that this is the case without so much
as a single shred of direct evidence? "
( read this bit real s l o w l y )
YOU ARE LIAR - YOU ARE 100% WRONG YET AGAIN
I HAVE NEVER EVER SAID, IN MY ENTIRE LIFE, NOT HERE, NOT ANYWHERE, THAT:
"The lack of any other piece of writing being attributed to Rebazar Tarzs
or any other ECK Master, simply does not prove that none of them exist, nor
does it prove that they are fictional."
or any other ECK Master, simply does not prove that none of them exist, nor
does it prove that they are fictional."
OR ANYTHING EVEN HALF CLOSE TO THAT - EVER - YOU'VE MADE IT UP YOURSELF
OTHERWISE PROVE IT WITH A QUOTE REF OR STFU - YOU CAN NOT BECAUSE THERE IS NONE
re: "LMAO! Utterly hilarious! Maybe another drink will help eh??? LMAO!!!"
Wow, Mr Maturity guided by the ECK and the Wisdom of the ECK Masters?
Woo Hoo - you go gurl!!!
Fuckin' stupid idiot.
Henosis Sage
May 26, 2015, 2:37:37 AM5/26/15
to
Over the years there have many weird things done and said on a.r.e.
But Matt Sharpe takes the first prize for the most extreme lunacy and
bullshit ever posted to this group.
FOR TEN MONTHS NOW HE HAS BEEN TALKING UTTER GARBAGE AND LYING ABOUT OTHERS.
I told him he was an "idiot" back in Sept 2014 then and he is still one now .. Is he Dyslexic? Possibly. A fuck wit? Definitely. Whatever the cause MATTILDA
CANNOT UNDERSTAND BASIC ENGLISH SENTENCES -
He cannot even grasp HOW to properly apply the % symbol in a sentence.
DUMB AS DIRT IS OUR DIP STICK MATTILDA
------
"you can't prove a negative... "
IT'S TRUE
BUT MATTILDA HAS BEEN DEMANDING OTHERS PROVE NEGATIVES SINCE SEPT 2014
YOU ARE AN IDIOT MATT SHARPE - AND BORING
re ""and neither of you are %100 correct""
NO DICK HEAD IT'S " 100% "
The Chicago Manual of Style - Numbers
Q. In prose, when writing percentages, which is correct: 10 percent; ten percent, or 10%?
A. Chicago prefers the use of numerals for all numbers used as part of percentages, but use the word "percent" for humanistic copy and the
"%" symbol for scientific and statistical copy:
humanistic:
10 percent (but spell out "10" if it begins the sentence)
scientific, statistical:
10%
http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Numbers/faq0005.html
Sane people do it this way at least.
UNLESS ONE IS A FULLY PAID UP MEMBER OF KINPANKAR AFTER DRINKING THE KOOLAIDE.
Henosis Sage
May 26, 2015, 2:43:28 AM5/26/15
to
KINPAPAPADAM re: "I didn't start it".
LYING RETARD
You have been an obnoxious OFFENSIVE insulting lying MANIPULATIVE scumbag
and right fucking low life piece of shit since Sept 2014. You're fucked!!!
re: "By the way, how was the cookout yesterday? LOL"
INSANE DELUSIONAL PSYCHOTIC MANIPULATIVE NARCISSISTIC SICK FUCK
Woo Hoo what a hero?
Henosis Sage
May 26, 2015, 2:50:11 AM5/26/15
to
RE
I called him on it and Kinpa wrote to me like that. I point blank asked if he, Kinpa, was speaking for Rebazar Tarzs. Then I read ...
"Did I say I was speaking for him? Have you no common sense boy? Seriously? I speak for myself, and what I stated about him happens to be true regardless of anyone's opinions ... ."
SHIT OF ZERO INTEGRITY.
YOU GET THAT ON THE BIG JOBS.
COMMON SENSE SUGGESTS TO DEAL WITH IT APPROPRIATELY FOR WHAT IT IS.
(shrug)
Kinpa
May 26, 2015, 9:31:58 AM5/26/15
to
Henosis Sage
May 26, 2015, 11:36:04 PM5/26/15
to
RE "...no one ever called me a nutter shitter"
WHAT A COINCIDENCE, NO ONE HAS EVER CALLED ME THAT EITHER.
ANOTHER %X ISSUE BY THE LOOK OF IT ... PSYCHOSIS OUT OF CONTROL
RE: "I am not the insane on, YOU are, and you continually
prove this daily! Keep going seanella! We're all watching!"
Gosh someone's messages are being deleted ... sorry what were YOU
saying about KARMA you fucking stupid moron?
RE "We're all watching!"
Who? All your split personalities and multi-dysfunctional Psychosis?
Fucking idiot!
Kinpa
May 27, 2015, 12:15:41 AM5/27/15
to
Henosis Sage
May 27, 2015, 5:56:28 AM5/27/15
to
RE "We're all watching!"
Who? All your split personalities and multi-dysfunctional Psychosis?
Fucking idiot!
" Gosh someone's messages are being deleted ... "
DICK WIT !!!
RE: "....keep crying seanella, it couldn;t be more obvious that you are
disturbed by me...and might be somewhat gay as well... "
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/NGpI3f7axKY/pKMSLChuYcoJ
RE: "They DO watch every bit of it however, that is how so many witnessed your
deleting threads yesterday...you must've gotten scared."
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/UjLPCf47M_w/4DO_0R4uH70J
RE: ".....I can keep this up for years, I have absolutely NO problem with it,
and this is why I so do NOT care about your opinions or beliefs, they
are negligible at best! Anything else to say seanella??? "
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/wKi6bnHz8G4/r7u0tx-GJqwJ
Well, yes, I do have something to say:
Psychopathy - being the quintessential manifestation of the path of non-Being,
Entropy, Destruction, and Evil in Third Density, that is, the level of humanity. As
Psychopathy represents the epitome of human Evil, psychopaths may properly be
defined as disguised and hidden predators living among and working against the rest of
unsuspecting humanity. Psychopaths utterly lack conscience and feel no guilt or
remorse for their actions, no matter how heinous or revolting.
A troll (/'tro?l/, /'tr?l/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Schadenfreude (/'???d?nfr??d?/; German: ['?a?dn??f????d?] ( listen)) is pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others.[1] This word is taken from German and literally means "harm-joy". It is the feeling of joy or pleasure when one sees another fail or suffer misfortune. It is also borrowed by some other languages. An English term of similar meaning (but with no noun equivalent) is "to gloat"; which means to feel, or express, great, often malicious, pleasure, or self-satisfaction, at one's own success, or at another's failure.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude
Two studies led by psychological scientist Erin Buckels of the University of British Columbia revealed that people who score high on a measure of sadism seem to derive pleasure from behaviors that hurt others, and are even willing to expend extra effort to make someone else suffer.
The new findings are published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.
"Some find it hard to reconcile sadism with the concept of 'normal' psychological functioning, but our findings show that sadistic tendencies among otherwise well-adjusted people must be acknowledged," says Buckels. "These people aren't necessarily serial killers or sexual deviants but they gain some emotional benefit in causing or simply observing others' suffering."
Based on their previous work on the "Dark Triad" of personality, Buckels and colleagues Delroy Paulhus of the University of British Columbia and Daniel Jones of the University of Texas El Paso surmised that sadism is a distinct aspect of personality that joins with three others -- psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism -- to form a "Dark Tetrad" of personality traits.
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/everyday-sadists-take-pleasure-in-others-pain.html
(shrug)
YAWN .............
Kinpa
May 27, 2015, 9:58:32 AM5/27/15
to
Henosis Sage
May 27, 2015, 12:19:39 PM5/27/15
to
As If Munchausen's Syndrome weren't Enough, Sean Also Has...
Chlorovirus ACTV-1..a virus that impairs gene expression relating to "...sy=
naptic plasticity, learning, memory formation, and the immune response to v=
iral exposure."! This explains why he acts so senselessly so often! Read al=
l about it here! http://www.pnas.org/content/111/45/16106.abstract
And here!http://worldtruth.tv/almost-half-the-population-may-be-infected-wi=
th-a-mysterious-virus-that-makes-people-stupid
By the way, I've actually been tested and am one of the 55% that is without=
it.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/UjLPCf47M_w/eCA_x84EQ1kJ
0 new messages