Gary Renard on Wikipedia
Gene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Disappearance_of_the_Universe
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Renard
are turning into a bit of fun and games. The latest round has me
insisting that you can't have Wikpedia (which is not something only for
Course students, much less only for Gary Renard students) claiming that
it was OK for Renard to contradict known scientific facts on the
grounds that "The Course uses metaphor in order to describe duality and
is speaking literally only when discussing the truth". I sometimes
wonder how some Course students manage to get through the day without
being run over by a bus.
Jeanette
Seems rather a fruitless encounter to take time and energy to prove
Gary wrong.
Gary is making a tremendously impact on students of the Course,
generally, and most certainly is bringing many to rightmindedness and
Thoughts of God.
I don't agree with all he says; however, the effect of his intent is
undeniable.
And frankly, scientific facts are only a temporary means the mind uses
to understand, until Understanding replaces what man has made. Not
wrong, just a means to an entirely different Vision.
I well remember the hate wars in regards to Ken, Gary, his wife, his
publisher, and anyone who held feelings in regards to the Course
different than what many held in heart and mind as a way towards
transcendence. It's a focus on keeping the ego busy, so that personal
denial is never confronted, and "attack" is seen as more useful than
introspection.
As far as the bus goes, hasn't happened. And probably there is good
reason for this.
Jeanette
jeanettejoy(at)earthlink(dot)net
My blog: http://thewillingmind.blogspot.com/
A great site for _A Course in Miracles_ discussion:
http://pointofperfection.com/tgp/forums/forum-view.asp?fid=1
*****
Carrie
generally, and most certainly is bringing many to rightmindedness and
Thoughts of God.
Gary is making a name for himself and probably a good living, by
setting himself up and getting himself known as a "course in miracles
teacher/speaker"
Seems like anyone can write a book and with enough hype and publicity
and marketing, get it out there and seen in a certain way, regardless
of how the author seems to be and has been behind the scenes.
Doesn't seem to me that people who claim to know and teach ACIM
should be fighting with those they have decided are enemies on
discussion boards, while pushing themselves as teachers/speakers and
well known course authors, at the same time.
But, as we all know, that's just me. And, who knows, it might be how
other well known authors really are, too, if they were known in a more
personal way.
And according to Earl (and karma) what's given out is received back,
so it all works out in some way.
Carrie
anything, and it doesn't have to be actual fact?
I haven't paid much attention to it because of this. Seems like
anyone can just make up whatever they want to be true and post it, and
then it's part of this online 'encyclopedia".
Did you see a few years back where the loyal followers on Gary's
group tried to pressure Beverly at MDC to put Disappearance in her
miracles catalog? Because that's the biggest miracles books/tapes etc
distributer and would have been a major break. She has all Patrick
Miller's other books listed. She didn't believe Gary's was a 'true ACIM
book" and their long years of reputation of being a course based center
is based on this.
on Gary's egroup they were saying something was wrong and someone
must have influenced Beverly not to do it, and if enough people emailed
her pressuring her to list it, she might change her mind.
Beverly (to me) is a fair and honest person who lives her beliefs
and stays out of ego as much as possible. Even though they invited her
to come to the group and talk about it, she refused (last I knew).
They had already made up their minds and she had already made up hers,
so she took the most peaceful way and dropped it.
The fact some who believe in the book thought something
underhanded was going on (maybe Gary's enemies had influenced Beverly
about this?) and a campagin started to change her mind with email
pressure, shows (to me) just what Gary and his book is really all
about. Someone who writes a course book and doesn't live it, like
"trust all things to Holy Spirit" and can't stand a few questions and
truth, without getting into a big ego deal over it (on a computer
screen?) still seeing enemies out there, that need defence and counter
attack, kind of shows what kind of a book they wrote and any value it
is.
Though, it's value might be in accepting it, trusting HS with it and
just letting it be.
There seem to be a lot of course groups around who don't teach and
live the course the way *I* believe it, and that doesn't have to mean
*I* can't live in the way i believe it, anyway.
Chances to remember and practice.
If nothing else, the basic, overall idea of "fukk it" seems to fit.
J
> Gene,
>
> Seems rather a fruitless encounter to take time and energy to prove
> Gary wrong.
~ What's fruitless and dumb is to describe disagreement with Renard, as
"proving Gary wrong."
~ Gary Renard has no proprietary claim on the Course material. Nor does
he has an unquestioned right to recklessly introduce bizarre,
comic-book level metaphysics, such as meat bots from Mars into Course
metaphysics with off-the-wall reality claims. In other words, Renard
does not claim DU is a work of fiction --so Renard limits his artistic
license and unwisely places himself in position of making
prophetic/religious claims.
>
> Gary is making a tremendously impact on students of the Course,
> generally, and most certainly is bringing many to rightmindedness and
> Thoughts of God.
~ ROTFLMAO. Well this is certainly debatable. Actually, DU is an
embarrassing, indulgent act of grandiose self-promotion by a novice
writer.
~ The mind loops which lead author, Gary Renard to elevate himself to
ascended master and ACIM prophet under the cover of teaching ACIM and
forgiveness is truly extraordinary. Especially given the context of the
book, which is little more than Interviews with wise-cracking ascended
masters and filled with unnecessary, bizarre metaphysical speculations
and several demonstrable historical errors pushed as fact.
~The measure of success of DU, is pretty much testimony to the
fractured, very-much-in-decline status of the of the post-copyright
ACIM community. Moreover, DU can be easily seen as the end result and
the definitive interpretation of Wapnick-based, first generation course
study. (After all, Wapnick read it, signed off on the book and
apparently had no objection that the book's ascended masters claimed he
was the designated "world teacher," of ACIM --and moreover, the DU was
little more than warmed over Wapnickian Course interpretation.)
Its not surprising this obviously fictional book, makes outrageous
reality claims of ascended mastership and religious authority to
bolster a trite interpretation of ACIM, which can no longer be
maintained by copyright controls. Nor is it surprising that the
"establishment" Course Community, so use to making money, selling books
and seminars on ACIM, would finally embrace and attempt to integrate
new age, bliss ninny BS into Course teaching to revive lack luster
interest in Course teachings.
>
> I don't agree with all he says; however, the effect of his intent is
> undeniable.
LOL. I dunno, Jeanette. Let's do a little mind experiment.
Let's say either Tom or I wrote a similar book and claimed as a fact,
not fiction, that we were ascended masters and our written, offered
interpretation of ACIM would therefore have the power and gloss of
religious authority. Moreover, defended any attempt to discredit the
book as mere opinion or fiction by appealing to the book's "intent," to
teach "forgiveness." Even more accuse any detractors of "forgiveness
issues."
Gee, somehow I think you'd be besides yourself. On the other hand, Gary
Renard is playing the same mind game and many give him a pass. This
book, DU is obviously fiction and even more obviously Renard's opinions
and interpretations of ACIM, dishonestly glossed with an outrageous
claim to religious authority. In other word, and undeniably --one of
the effect of Renard's intent is blatant self-promotion to a
semi-mythical figure and ascended mastership.
Now whether all of this can be overlooked because of Renard's "intent,"
to teach Course-based forgiveness is an ethical issue. And as most of
us know ethics are not a particular concern in new age metaphysics.
Though making money selling books, workshops and seminars to the
gullible is a big concern.
>
> And frankly, scientific facts are only a temporary means the mind uses
> to understand, until Understanding replaces what man has made. Not
> wrong, just a means to an entirely different Vision.
Jeanette, if you are going to make an counter argument --at least
give it some thought. Its dumb for any author not to check his facts.
>
> I well remember the hate wars in regards to Ken, Gary, his wife, his
> publisher, and anyone who held feelings in regards to the Course
> different than what many held in heart and mind as a way towards
> transcendence. It's a focus on keeping the ego busy, so that personal
> denial is never confronted, and "attack" is seen as more useful than
> introspection.
Hate wars? Aw -geeze. Arguably, Renard's "Disappearance" is the one of
the most dishonest books ever written and published. After all, it is
the only book in American literature which actually celebrates its own
censorship and elevates it own censor to "world teacher."
To find something comparable one would have to show examples like
self-published, Scientology books which unfailing elevated L. Ron
Hubbard to "world teacher." And even these books were not censored and
did not make pseudo-religious claims of ascended mastership, but were
presented as opinion.
Hate Wars? Not at all. Just an indication of the sorry, pitiful state
of first generation course study.
Nancy
Hee hee. More fun and games on
Wikidpedia. :)
Have you ever noticed how much Gary
looks like that Texas politician with the
creepy grin? (The Republican one that's
being prosecuted for political skull-
duggery.)
Nice to read you, Gene.
Nancy
Nancy
Jeanette wrote:
<...>
> Gary is making a tremendous
> impact on students of the Course,
> generally, and most certainly is
> bringing many to rightmindedness and
> Thoughts of God.
Huh?
n.
Linda
"Gene" <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150097098....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
(((Gene!)))
>
Carrie
Does it say somewhere who wrote those reviews?
It also has an "edit" link, and indicated if anyone is signed in they
can edit it (even if they aren't the one who originally wrote it?)
I never understood Wikipedia, if anyone can just post something about
something, who knows if it's all that true or not.
I also don't see anything about you on Gary's. Did you write the
reviews?
It says several harsh reviews were removed from Amazon after
complaints, maybe I don't remember it correctly, but I didn't think
they were harsh. I thought they questioned the "truth" (physics, etc)
in the book.
There's also the idea the visitors make time and events that happened
in history (on certain dates) REAL which I don't think anyone teaching
ACIM would do. It says what we think happened never really did.
>>> Renard's alleged series of encounters with this pair over the
course of nine years, from 1992 until just after the World Trade Center
Disaster of 2001.
Once again, I must be remembering incorrectly. I thought it was
eight years. One of my questions Gary didn't like and evaded was about
him keeping this a secret from his wife for all that time. It was like
leading a double life. Even making tapes, he must have had to hide the
cassettes and only work on the book when she wasn't home.
Of course, if time is illusion it really wouldn't matter anyway. And
last i knew Gary's wife left him.
J
Carrie wrote:
> Once again, I must be remembering incorrectly. I thought it was
> eight years. One of my questions Gary didn't like and evaded was about
> him keeping this a secret from his wife for all that time. It was like
> leading a double life. Even making tapes, he must have had to hide the
> cassettes and only work on the book when she wasn't home.
>
> Of course, if time is illusion it really wouldn't matter anyway. And
> last i knew Gary's wife left him.
ROTFLMAO. "Gary's wife left him."
Classic C******
We all needed to know that tid bit of gossip. But its other people's
fault even recognizing it as gossip.
Yeah, right!
Carrie
Classic C******
We all needed to know that tid bit of gossip. But its other people's
fault even recognizing it as gossip.
Yeah, right!
Gary told about it at one of his talks and someone there passed it
on, on the internet.
About a year or so ago.
It seems to tie in with the fact he openly talked about how he kept
his secret life, with visitors helping him write a book from his wife
for 8 (or 9) years.
Actually, I just threw it in here now- because most people probably
already know it, so you could grab onto it and get off on it, and make
your day.
Sort of gives new meaning to the term get a life. A man, hanging
out on the internet looking for something you can see as gossip so you
can gossip about it and point it out (hee hee) . Also, interesting to
see how you are selective in this and don't see it, notice it or care
when it's someone else.
J
Carrie wrote:
> >>>ROTFLMAO. "Gary's wife left him."
>
> Classic C******
>
>
> We all needed to know that tid bit of gossip. But its other people's
> fault even recognizing it as gossip.
>
>
> Yeah, right!
>
>
> Gary told about it at one of his talks and someone there passed it
> on, on the internet.
>
> About a year or so ago.
>
> It seems to tie in with the fact he openly talked about how he kept
> his secret life, with visitors helping him write a book from his wife
> for 8 (or 9) years.
Really? Why not make the tie in for everyone who doesn't get the gossip
and innuendo? Did Renard say his wife left him because he didn't tell
her about these vistors?
Gee, how could that be? His wife was one of his main defenders when the
book came out. If you wish to bring up the "fact," that his wife left
him a year or so ago, why not ask Renard why his wife left him, instead
of making innuendos that it is because he is deceitful with his wife?
Let's see. I can think of tens of reasons why his wife might leave
Renard besides having a fictional secret life, promoting a fictional
book as real. The fact is his wife leaving Reard has no bearing on
anything, except that for some reason his wife left him. The only
relavance to what is being discussed is to insert this in to smear
Renard as someone whose wife would leave him. That's why its gossip.
Carrie
Actually that was the reason given
And because she couldn't deal with his new fame and travelling
around.
Though it could be someone else's gossip and innuendos.
Maybe even Gary's.
You seem to have gossip on the brain, do you have a built in
antenna? You seem to only pick up on it in some people and not others,
which comes in handy. If Nancy, for example had said Gary's wife left
him, it would have been fine.
This doesn't make it seeing and pointing out gossip. It makes it into
a joke.
J
Carrie wrote:
> Actually that was the reason given
>
> And because she couldn't deal with his new fame and travelling
> around.
Backtracking. Oh, no ties now to secret lives, now she left him because
of fame and traveling.
If that's the rather innocent reason for leaving Renard, then why even
mention it?
You can't help being a gossip --can you Carrie? That's just what you do
and how you think.
J
Carrie wrote:
> You seem to have gossip on the brain, do you have a built in
> antenna? You seem to only pick up on it in some people and not others,
> which comes in handy. If Nancy, for example had said Gary's wife left
> him, it would have been fine.
>
> This doesn't make it seeing and pointing out gossip. It makes it into
> a joke.
Really? I've never seen Nancy indulge in gratuitous gossip. Funny, no
one has written a parody on Nancy doing gossip. The parody was written
about you and your gossip mentality.
Why not shove you mind f**ks where the sun don't shine? Hey, that's my
CHOICE and you don't like my CHOICE you old internet scumbag, go shove
your CHOICE where the sun don't shine. Ding Bat Troll.
Gene
Jeanette wrote:
> Gene,
>
> Seems rather a fruitless encounter to take time and energy to prove
> Gary wrong.
I'm not proposing to do that any more; Gary does too good a job proving
himself wrong. However, I am a Wikipedia editor who was put in a lot of
work on it, and I don't care to have shoddy articles in it.
> I don't agree with all he says; however, the effect of his intent is
> undeniable.
I agree it is undeniably bad.
Gene
Carrie wrote:
> Isn't Wikipedia a website where ANYONE can post an article about
> anything, and it doesn't have to be actual fact?
Anyone can. Five minutes later, unless you are clever about it, someone
is likely to change it back again. Keep up what Wikipedians call
"vandalism" and you'll be banned.
> I haven't paid much attention to it because of this. Seems like
> anyone can just make up whatever they want to be true and post it, and
> then it's part of this online 'encyclopedia".
You'd think so, but it works much better than you might expect it to.
Gene
Linda wrote:
> (((Gene!)))
Hi, Linda! :)
Jeanette
"I'm not proposing to do that any more; Gary does too good a job
proving himself wrong. However, I am a Wikipedia editor who was put in
a lot of work on it, and I don't care to have shoddy articles in it."
Well, I guess you will just have to deal with the fact Gary is becoming
increasingly popular, has two books, and the information he presents is
accepted by many. Your wish to herald his "wrongness" and the "shoddy"
articles will be overlooked by most, and perhaps you can find two or
three people who can join you in your campaign.
The effect Gary has had, even though the information he presents
apparently doesn't meet your approval, has been more favorable to
hearts and minds than the call you hold to find him "bad."
"I agree it is undeniably bad."
That's your opinion. His lectures worldwide, which lead to his second
book, apparently speak differently.
Apparently he is offering something undeniably good. At least I don't
hear him spending much time and effort complaining about bad reviews.
His book doesn't appeal to me that much, although people who are drawn
to its contents, with whom I have spoken, seem to find it useful as
part of their own personal introspection and change of mind.
Jeanette
jeanettejoy(at)earthlink(dot)net
My blog: http://thewillingmind.blogspot.com/
A great site for _A Course in Miracles_ discussion:
http://pointofperfection.com/tgp/forums/forum-view.asp?fid=1
*****
Carrie
Gene wrote:
>
> > I haven't paid much attention to it because of this. Seems like
> > anyone can just make up whatever they want to be true and post it, and
> > then it's part of this online 'encyclopedia".
>
> You'd think so, but it works much better than you might expect it to.
and before
>>>However, I am a Wikipedia editor who was put in a lot of
work on it, and I don't care to have shoddy articles in it.
This is good to know, there's something/someone seriously behind it,
and it's not just something started and spreading out over the internet
(like MY SPACE (LOL).
interesting
I hadn't paid much attention to it, but the potential for collecting
knowledge and facts one can look up and add/share in is amazing. Same
with the potential for using it to write bad/misleading stuff, based on
someone the writer might personally dislike.
J
Jeanette wrote:
> Gene,
>
> "I'm not proposing to do that any more; Gary does too good a job
> proving himself wrong. However, I am a Wikipedia editor who was put in
> a lot of work on it, and I don't care to have shoddy articles in it."
>
> Well, I guess you will just have to deal with the fact Gary is becoming
> increasingly popular, has two books, and the information he presents is
> accepted by many. Your wish to herald his "wrongness" and the "shoddy"
> articles will be overlooked by most, and perhaps you can find two or
> three people who can join you in your campaign.
Well, Jeanette popularity is relative. You should have figured out by
now that popular writing is about finding an audience.and filling a
need. Renard's popularity is vulnerable to any new author filling the
need of an entertaining, easy to read, entry level book to A Course in
Miracles. When that happens, one usually finds its only authenticity,
not novelty which survives the winds of change and the whims of
readers.
Moreover it very likely whatever popularity Renard now finds would have
been multiplied many times over with some minor editing and a claim his
book was fiction rather than fact. Instead, Renard and his publisher,
Pat Miller choose the easy road of in-your-face controversy and
polarization to generate sales in an course community already fractured
and polarized by the copyright legal battels.
The literary conceit of a most bizzare and unbeliveable personal
religious experience salvaging the authenticity of Ken Wapnick as God's
designated world teacher of ACIM in the aftermath of a long reign of
legal terror is not authentic. Rather, unnecessary and opportunistic,
considering the purported purpose of DU was to be an entry level
introduction to ACIM.
Even less seen as "forgiving," when its rather obvious, calculated
controversy and polarization is the subtext of Renard's book.
Calculated in the sense that the controversial and polarizing portions
of DU could easily have been edited out without effecting the story,
message or purpose.
As such there is many reasons to see DU as an essentially dishonest and
inauthentic work, by a dishonest and inauthentic author.
Jeanette
I've already read all the intelligent posts about how Gary is a fraud,
along with the "scientific evidence," and those who claim sources
outside this realm cannot enter our sphere to teach us, while
concurrently they hold personal white barbie-doll angel visitations as
believable. chortling
That said:
I really doubt, as much as you find Gary has transgressed upon the very
divine nature of the Holy Spirit, your voice will be heard.
What popularity does is appeal to the masses. It's not a measure of
authenticity; however, those who follow Gary's lead, and I've read
their messages, most certainly speak in terms of what is the most
prevalently accepted interpretation of what the Course says.
Now you can make you voice heard on this ng, where rare readership
occurs, or do as Gary did, something different.
I have yet to see Gene's "book," or the large breasted white angel
fraud market (my opinion, since you gave yours) appeal to the masses to
any degree, comparatively as what Gary has done.
The question of his popularity remains: Why? Perhaps due to Holy Spirit
inspiration? Who am I to say? It *must* be at least a consideration.
Did Jesus prepare a Course, and then drop all means as to its
instruction, and distribution?? Did he absent himself once the last
word was dictated? I clearly think not.
If you find what Gary has done so disagreeable, perhaps doing something
of positive note for change in the world might be a better idea than
constantly returning to argument as to why Gary is a fraud. His
publisher by the way, D. Patrick Miller, is also quite successful,
independently publishing a wide viewpoint of spiritual information, and
Ken still remains the most "popular" teacher.
Are they all wrong? I find it hard to believe. People are very
discerning, even skeptical as to "spiritual" matters. And the
popularity grows for Miller, Renard, and Ken. And the outpouring of
forgiving messages, of re-connection with God, as Love, and healing, is
well apparent in those who find these fellows of purposeful endeavor.
As for "legal terror," the naysayers achieved what they wanted. Has
anything really changed? Some find the Urtext useful, most have
returned to the Blue Books, and study, and even the public Urtext Form
has faded from view. Nothing changed but to remind many people the
controvery wasn't the point. The self-study of the Course is. Ken's
legal loss is null and void, just as the Course teaches. As a matter of
fact, on the internet, his popularity as teacher seems to have risen.
The only disappointment in the legal matter is those who felt they
would take Ken's place as The Authentic Teachers somehow found
themselves in a query as to why their well laid plans "disappeared,"
and left them hanging in mid air. They now grovel, having estranged
themselves from nearly everybody through childish behavior, attempting
to find any ways and means to regain some public reputable disclosure.
Then again, summertime is always a good time to suspend foolish
classes. That ring of power has just slipped away, time to re-group,
and heavens! choose another way.
The above is just to vividly portray how Gary, D. Pat, and others, are
going about Course business in an ethical way, and are very responsive
to those who choose personal introspection, and manifestation in the
world in a *positive,* and well publicly noted flourishing, way. I
seriously doubt they have fooled all of the people all of the time. It
just doesn't work that way. There is something very authentic as to
what they have done, and the HLC speaks of outcomes being of value in
regards to thinking--->behavior--->authenticity. Then again, so does
the Blue Book, as does The Bible.
I don't find Gary or Ken to be my teacher. But I am impressed as to the
people who seem to be affected by a meaningful and purposeful message
for them, and how frankly, the arguments you present, well, the overall
response is: Who gives a damn?
Or, if you don't like what the author of the Course has done with *his*
work, take it up with him.
D. Patrick Miller's website for anyone who hasn't noted the excellent
work this man has done: http://www.fearlessbooks.com/
And Gary Renard, the man so despised by so few:
http://www.garyrenard.com/index2.htm
Jeanette
jeanettejoy(at)earthlink(dot)net
My blog: http://thewillingmind.blogspot.com/
A great site for _A Course in Miracles_ discussion:
http://pointofperfection.com/tgp/forums/forum-view.asp?fid=1
*****
*****
maz
"Gene" <genewa...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:1150166679.7...@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
A MORPH?
http://redpill.dailygrail.com/wiki/Main_Page
:-)
maz
J
Jeanette wrote:
> John,
>
> I've already read all the intelligent posts about how Gary is a fraud,
> along with the "scientific evidence," and those who claim sources
> outside this realm cannot enter our sphere to teach us, while
> concurrently they hold personal white barbie-doll angel visitations as
> believable. chortling
ROTFLMAO. Well, Jeanette. Its not surprising you miss the subtly of my
argument. The claim is as a writer, Renard is dishonest and
inauthentic, which is an artistic evaluation, and would hold true even
he if genuinely believed the events he chronicled actually happened to
him. And certainly would be an even more relevant evaluation if these
events were ever proved to be fictional.
Honesty and authenticity are values of artistic expression. For example
the book, "A Million Little Pieces," by James Frey was criticized
because he made up and exaggerated events of a supposed autobiography.
Nevertheless, the book read with honesty and authenticity because Frey
was in fact, a real, hard core drug addict. People who were hard core
addicts knew he wrote the truth about addiction, and people who never
touched drugs could sense, Frey knew of what he spoke.
In other words, despite Frey's dishonesty in pushing imagination and
exaggeration as "fact," he nevertheless possessed the artistic virtues
of honesty and authenticity. Its very unlikely that even a more
accomplished and more imaginative writer could have duplicated the
artistic impact of "A Thousand Little Pieces," if such a writer had
never experienced the horrors of long term drug addiction.
Moreover, and more to the point with Renard and his book, DU
---authentic experience does not necessarily translate to honest and
authentic artistic expression. After all there are tens of millions of
hard core addicts in the world, and perhaps only a few have written on
addiction with the compelling power and passion of Frey. Why is that?
Because people in general and even more so drug addicts are often so
deep in denial about the truth of their condition, they could never
face the ugly truth and express it artistically with honesty and
authenticity. As such the valued artistic qualities of honesty and
authenticity are the opposite of what is commonly called "denial."
Artistically, Renard get an "F minus," simply by writing for and
submitting his work for censorship. Moreover, willingly submitting to
censorship, willing writing in such a way that large amounts of quotes
from another book controlled by another person determines what one can
write and express is the height of artistic dishonesty and
inauthenticity. If you doubt that censorship is artistically foul and
depraved, ask any writer or artist.
At any rate, I suspect you don't get this point about artistic honesty,
because you confuse artistic expression with unrestrained sensitivity
and emotions. Hence you consider yourself sensitive and filled with
emotions and thus fancy anything you write as honest and authentic,
when in fact you are very inauthentic in your manner of expression. For
example, it seems impossible for you to write a simple sentence
expressing a simple idea unencumbered by attitude. As such you write
behind an affected persona which artificially separates you from both
your audience and the ugly truth. This in turn keeps the truth ugly and
invulnerable to artistic transformation.
This is not a personal criticism, but rather an artistic criticism.
Honest and authentic expression takes effort and these qualities
separates the working artist from would be artists expressing denial
not truth.
As such time will tell if Gary Renard is an honest and authentic writer
or an opportunist in denial.
Nancy
Is it required that the articles on Wikidpedia
have known authors? Is there a record of
who edits these articles?
Nancy
Gene
Nancy wrote:
> Is it required that the articles on Wikidpedia
> have known authors?
No. An article is edited either by a logged on editor, who may however
be using a nym, or by someone not logged on.
Is there a record of
> who edits these articles?
Not unless the editor is logged on and uses his real name, like I do.
However, anonymous edits have less status and are more likely to be
reverted, and anonymous editors cannot start an article.
Gene
Gene
Jeanette wrote:
> Well, I guess you will just have to deal with the fact Gary is becoming
> increasingly popular, has two books, and the information he presents is
> accepted by many.
He doesn't present "information", he tells lies. That is neither here
nor there, except that Wikipedia is a resource for all people, and is
supposed to adhere to the principles of verifyibility and "NPOV",
meaning a neutral point of view. Claiming that humans coming from Mars
does not contradict known science is not NPOV; Wikipedia has the same
sort of problem with people who want to argue for geocentrism and the
like, and they are not allowed to make it their private sandbox for
weird points of view contradicting common scientific understanding.
> The effect Gary has had, even though the information he presents
He does NOT present "infomation". If you don't believe me, look the
word "information" up in a dictionary.
> That's your opinion. His lectures worldwide, which lead to his second
> book, apparently speak differently.
Gee, Hitler wrote a second book too. So what?
> Apparently he is offering something undeniably good.
That's what a lot of people said about Adolf; "popular" does not mean
"good".
At least I don't
> hear him spending much time and effort complaining about bad reviews.
Someone, probably Gary or his wife, went to the trouble of yanking my
reviews on Amazon. Yes, Gary does care about bad reviews, as we could
see by his whining on this very group.
Carrie
> impact on students of the Course,
> generally, and most certainly is
> bringing many to rightmindedness and
> Thoughts of God.
Huh?
I think it might be "according to Gary".
He had good marketing, pushing the book and making sure anyone who
questioned it (the storyline, and/or it relating to ACIM) was turned
into an enemy and troublemaker.
Then Gary started touring with Jon Mundy who is a known course
speaker. Even though Gary said in the book he didn't want to be a
public speaker and talk about it, he'd "ratrher eat ground glass", he
got over this really quickly.
Gary is publicized and sold as a course teacher and speaker.
Whatever he may be, a lot of it has been molded and created by PR.
IMHO of course. Some of us who were there from the start know
what really went on and have seen it continuing.
J
Gene wrote:
> Jeanette wrote:
>
> > Well, I guess you will just have to deal with the fact Gary is becoming
> > increasingly popular, has two books, and the information he presents is
> > accepted by many.
>
> He doesn't present "information", he tells lies.
Well, his "story," ie, what he claims as fact and what actually
happened --is so unbelievable one wonders if Pat Miller didn't
advertise in a writers journal for a fantastic liar who could pull off
a great hoax for fun and profit.
Mr. Renard were are your notes and video tapes of these fantastic
encounters with ascended masters?
Reply: I destroyed them.
And Mr. Renard, you say these visits happened over a period of nine
years and only when your wife was not around.
Reply. Yes
And you never told your wife for about these visits for the entire nine
years.
Reply Yes
Gee, how convenient, Renard.
Like you said, Gene. Renard doesn't give information. He tells lies.
Carrie
reviews on Amazon. Yes, Gary does care about bad reviews, as we could
see by his whining on this very group.
Gary's wife, who used a fake name to defend him here (one saying she
was a brother at Endeavor Academy) was one of the first to post a
glowing review about the book on Amazon, using her fake (well, I think
it was her maiden name, but it wasn't Renard) name and making out she
was just an ordinary (impartial) reader who bought the book and loved
it.Not saying Gary was her husband.
At some point this review disappeared, too, maybe someone clued in
Amazon that the author's wife, using a fake name, pretending to be an
impartial reader wasn't exactly honest.
Maybe it was the dishonesty around the whole thing she couldn't
handle.
She sent me a few emails explaining her side of it at the time (of
the fake name posts) she seemed like a nice person.
What good are reviews, like on Amazon, if they're not going to be
truly honest and impartial? of course, negative reviews don't sell
books, so they don't want too many of them.
Jeanette
"ROTFLMAO. Well, Jeanette. Its not surprising you miss the subtly of my
argument. The claim is as a writer, "
I don't miss it at all, John, I've read it dozens of times. I simply
think the outcomes Gary is experiencing speaks of something beyond the
confines of what you find of value.
"Artistically, Renard get an "F minus," simply by writing for and
submitting his work for censorship."
He didn't submit his work for censorship, although many, as you,
determine he should be censored.
"At any rate, I suspect you don't get this point about artistic
honesty, because you confuse artistic expression with unrestrained
sensitivity and emotions."
No, I don't. I find Gary wrote a book. There have been good outcomes on
its reception. It is you who are quite emotional in response to Gary's
decision.
And BTW, I find nothing wrong with sensitivity and emotions, although I
know men like you who would use your definition to regard women as less
in intelligent conversation.
"For example, it seems impossible for you to write a simple sentence
expressing a simple idea unencumbered by attitude."
I'll concern myself with my communications, you concern yourself with
yours. If I want advice I'll ask someone I trust, who isn't all tied
inside on needing to find me less intelligent so that their viewpoint
is obviously heralded as wisdom.
" As such you write behind an affected persona which artificially
separates you from both your audience and the ugly truth."
I have been commended for the work, and writing I do. If the outcomes
in my world didn't speak of my progress, I would choose otherwise. Even
though you are among the naysayers in regards to me, or perhaps this is
just one of those "generalized" comments, and "nothing personal," I
note what those who constantly complain are doing, in comparison to my
own accomplishments. I've got work to do, no question about it, at
least I don't blame Gary or anyone else for failing to meet what I feel
I am to Do.
"This is not a personal criticism, but rather an artistic criticism."
It is a personal criticism, and always has been. Although guised as
artistic critique it's nothing more than immature bashing of an
individual because a few are so upset that Gary gained favor in what he
was/is doing. Too bad.
" As such time will tell if Gary Renard is an honest and authentic
writer or an opportunist in denial."
The time has passed. Gary has written his 2nd book, and it's been met
with accolades.
I clearly understand your viewpoint that Gary wrote a book for
egotistical praise and applause, Ken Wapnick supported him because Gary
chose to comment as to his instruction, and Gary is a liar as to the
"visitations." And oh, yes, that Gary and Ken completed this project
together.
Then, again, there has been clear demonstration as to the good outcomes
concerning Gary's book. Human beings who choose pathways of
spirituality tend to be quite discerning. I find they can make
intelligent choices for themselves.
Let's see you do better. You are well versed, intelligent, state you
understand artistic authenticity, along with credibility. Let's see
your communication with the world that speaks of your standards of
discourse and principle.
Jeanette
jeanettejoy(at)earthlink(dot)net
My blog: http://thewillingmind.blogspot.com/
A great site for _A Course in Miracles_ discussion:
http://pointofperfection.com/tgp/forums/forum-view.asp?fid=1
*****
Carrie
determine he should be censored.
Actually, he did. When the book was coming out he and Patrick Miller
wrote about it here (on the newsgroup from hell?) and there was a
chapter or excerpt from one on Patrick's website. They came here
telling about it for questions and feedback. When they got this they
didn't like it.
LIKE THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY MIGHT GET FROM THIS NEWSGROUP?
It was also stated at one point that controversy and fighting over
it helped the sale of the book. People heard about it and wanted to
read it and see what it was all about. I think some here did buy the
book after seeing the arguing about it here. Sales would go way up
everytime this started (and maybe are now)
So, Gary certainly wasn't hurt financially by it. Publicity and
controversy sells.
But, you do have a point, Gary did write a book, get it published and
sold (due to marketing and PR and shutting peoiple up who questioned it
and spoke up about it's faults) and has launched himself as a speaker
and course teacher. People who don't really know what ACIM is won't
know whether he's legit or where he's coming from or how he got there.
And even though he ties in with and surrounds himself with others
who are more for real course teachers, he still isn't totally accepted
by all. Miracle Distribution Center (and their book catalog and
gatherings, etc)
He does seem to have a financially successful book and a new
career. Sort of like James Redfield and Celestine Prophecy (which no
publisher would buy and he ended up publishing it himself). His first
book was technically fiction but i think shouldn't have been. He
shouldn't have tried to fit it into a "story". But it had good stuff in
it and didn't claim to be ACIM or any other already published work.
maz
Carrie
This is really concise in summing it up. There's also the point he
could have taken pictures and/or videos, the visitors said this was
possible, they'd show up in them. But, this idea was casually dismissed
because people would just accuse him of using actors.
I might even have believed the idea of Ascended Masters appearing and
disappearing, even without tapes and pictures, had Gary's reaction to
them been more normal and less dismissive and flip. The real story, if
there was on, in this book was the visitors appearing in form and
disappearing into thin air. Not the vague facts thrown out and course
quotes and events in history the visitors told about because they were
THERE.
If Gary had given the overall setting of the story more reality and
importance, and answered questions about it honestly (not like he felt
guilty and had something to hide, and people who were asking questions
to try and get into the story were troublemakers and enemies) it might
have come across in a more believable way. Gary acted like he was
playing a part he wasn't quite sure of, and didn't want to be pinned
down by direct questions about it, that he didn't have answers to.
Even people I know who liked the book, even loved it, and felt they
got so much from it, said they didn't pay attention to the overall
setting of it. Or, treated it like a (badly written) Sci Fi story.
I can't see anyone really spending 8 years (now changed to 9?) on
something like this, not telling his wife about it, and casually
mentioning how he had destroyed the tapes after writing it. So they
wouldn't get sold or passed around on ebay.
This just doesn't ring true or honest, and Gary's reaction when
asked questions about it, only reinforced this. I don't know what
Patrick Miller and Fearless Books got into it for, anyone who is
seriously into ACIM didn't want anything to do with it. Miracle
Distribution Center has a long time reputation for offering course
materials and woudn't list it, even though they have all Patrick's
other books. Maybe it was a case of seeing the financial/commercial
potential of it and putting that first.
J
Jeanette wrote:
"Artistically, Renard get an "F minus," simply by writing for and
submitting his work for censorship."
He didn't submit his work for censorship, although many, as you,
determine he should be censored."
________________________________________
"Well, Jeanette. You ought to stick to nursing or whatever you do. You
obviously don't know the facts of this situation, and shouldn't pretend
you know the facts.
The fact is Renard, like Robert Perry wrote under FACIM corporate
censorship because the books they choose to write needed permission to
use course quotes over and above the very small fair use standard
established by FACIM/Wapnick. Denial of publication of a book "as
written," is censorship.
In other words, Gary Renard wrote "Disappearance of the Universe"
knowing he would need Ken Wapnick's review and permission to use course
quotes. The teachings of the so-called ascended masters in DU not only
taught warmed-over Wapnickian metaphysics but also anointed Wapnick as
Jesus' designated teacher of ACIM. So its not surprising Gary Renard
was given permission by Wapnick to use course quotes in DU.
But lets be clear, Renard''s manuscript was submitted for review and
could have be denied the use of course quotes, as in the well known
case involving Robert Perry.
Robert Perry was denied the use of course quotes for his scholarly
book. And even a pretentious know it like yourself can hardly argue
this wasn't censorship of Robert Perry's work which just happened to
offer an alternative interpretation of ACIM.
Moreover, considering this state of affairs where at least one course
author, Perry was denied use of course quotes, and as a consequence
--became involved in a legal battle where Wapnick attorneys petitioned
the judge to burn Perry's inventory of offending books. As such, this
corporate censorship should not be regarded as trivial.
In addition, it hard NOT to see Gary Renard unfairly profiting and
exploiting a corrupt system of corporate censorship which thought
BURNING books on Course commentary was a good idea. Moreover, it not
hard to see whatever "success," Renard has gained with his book, that
this success was at the expense of course writers who would not corrupt
their spiritual works by submitting to corporate censorship.
Carrie
knowing he would need Ken Wapnick's review and permission to use course
quotes
And he threw in that part about the visitors saying Ken was the only
real course teacher (at this time) to make sure he got it?
I also remember Gary accusing Gene of accusing him (Gary) of
perpetrating a hoax and threatening him with legal action.
When Gene was just pointing out what (to him) were untrue facts,
about the Universe, energy, etc. which Ascended Masters, teaching this
as fact might be expected to have correct, and asking questions about
this.
Of course, in any court case, Gary would have no proof he even spoke
with Ascended Masters (the tapes were destroyed, no pictures taken and
not another person told the whole time) so it would be just his word.
And he could always blame it on Arten and Pursah where he got it from.
Seems like sort of a safety net all set up
Jeanette
"You ought to stick to nursing or whatever you do. You obviously don't
know the facts of this situation, and shouldn't pretend you know the
facts."
I do know the facts and have read them redundantly. I also know Perry's
feelings in these regards, as he posted a response on the internet in
regards to his personal response to all of it. Perry speaks quite
differently than you do.
"In other words, Gary Renard wrote "Disappearance of the Universe"
knowing he would need Ken Wapnick's review and permission to use course
quotes. The teachings of the so-called ascended masters in DU not only
taught warmed-over Wapnickian metaphysics but also anointed Wapnick as
Jesus' designated teacher of ACIM. So its not surprising Gary Renard
was given permission by Wapnick to use course quotes in DU."
So what? Ken allowed him to do so. His choice. Or their's.
"Robert Perry was denied the use of course quotes for his scholarly
book. And even a pretentious know it like yourself can hardly argue
this wasn't censorship of Robert Perry's work which just happened to
offer an alternative interpretation of ACIM."
Perry has absolutely no argument, upsetness, or quarrel with Ken, Gary,
or the experience of his book, and legal agreements, therein.
You sound as if Perry has joined your campaign to be angry about Ken's
choices. He's not. I copied and posted his remarks in these regards on
the newsgroup once. Perry has absolutely no feelings concerning his
book, his experience, or Ken, as you do
"In addition, it hard NOT to see Gary Renard unfairly profiting and
exploiting a corrupt system of corporate censorship which thought
BURNING books on Course commentary was a good idea."
You speak as if this is prolific in the "Course community," and there
is an uprising in regards to Ken's decisions.
This is clearly about a few people, and their ongoing anger with Ken
Wapnick.
If the Foundation published The Course, they had every right to speak
as to copyright privilege. Now that the privilege is gone, everyone who
so waited this decision in order to write books hasn't written one.
Fact is, John, people are listening to Ken, and Gary, and not to you.
There is a reason for this, and there's the riddle for you.
You also seem to find that those who honor Ken's works take the whole
of what he says to heart, and those who respect Gary find every word he
writes applicable to their belief system. Not true. You paint a very
broad brush among people who have learned to take what is useful, and
leave the rest--->that's the spiritually adult thing to Do.
"at the expense of course writers who would not corrupt their spiritual
works"
You're free to write as you please John. Let's see you appeal to the
masses based upon what you find to be appropriate Course interpretation
and principle.
" it hard NOT to see Gary Renard unfairly profiting "
Now it's the money . . .
Jeanette
jeanettejoy(at)earthlink(dot)net
My blog: http://thewillingmind.blogspot.com/
A great site for _A Course in Miracles_ discussion:
http://pointofperfection.com/tgp/forums/forum-view.asp?fid=1
*****
J
Jeanette wrote:
> John,
>
> "You ought to stick to nursing or whatever you do. You obviously don't
> know the facts of this situation, and shouldn't pretend you know the
> facts."
>
> I do know the facts and have read them redundantly. I also know Perry's
> feelings in these regards, as he posted a response on the internet in
> regards to his personal response to all of it. Perry speaks quite
> differently than you do.
You do know facts? Since when, Jeanette?
>
> "In other words, Gary Renard wrote "Disappearance of the Universe"
> knowing he would need Ken Wapnick's review and permission to use course
> quotes. The teachings of the so-called ascended masters in DU not only
> taught warmed-over Wapnickian metaphysics but also anointed Wapnick as
> Jesus' designated teacher of ACIM. So its not surprising Gary Renard
> was given permission by Wapnick to use course quotes in DU."
>
> So what? Ken allowed him to do so. His choice. Or their's.
So what? Its censorship. So what? Its corrupt and unethical, especially
when applied to book promoted as spiritual work by a divine being. My
opinion? Apparently the opinion of many, including a Federal judge.
That's so what.
Sounds like you need to return to school and get a liberal education.
>
> "Robert Perry was denied the use of course quotes for his scholarly
> book. And even a pretentious know it like yourself can hardly argue
> this wasn't censorship of Robert Perry's work which just happened to
> offer an alternative interpretation of ACIM."
>
> Perry has absolutely no argument, upsetness, or quarrel with Ken, Gary,
> or the experience of his book, and legal agreements, therein.
Oh geez. Now Jeanette Wiese speaks for Robert Perry. Something tells me
the Flake alert alarms are ringing in Sedona.
Jim
harshly punitive laws as a good example of what I have done to myself.
Only in the ego's world could we need to use such harsh and punitive
laws to hold us back from finding reality because of the ego's pain and
terror. The Son of God needs no laws but the laws of his Father, but
the laws the ego makes up seem to make God's laws meaningless. Paper
strips and metal disks to which we accord value, long needles filled
with viruses that we call protective, rotting flesh that we believe
nourishes us and maintains our existence, anger which we belief defines
our boundaries and keeps us safe. Sometimes I also wonder how many
Course students manage to get through the day, but it is certainly true
that in the ego's world the ego's laws cannot be ignored with impunity.
The question, rather, is whether we want to see reality BECAUSE it is
true, and not because we think it will offer us more than any given
illusion...
Jim.
Gene
Jim wrote:
> Personally, I find it more helpful to see the reality of the world's
> harshly punitive laws as a good example of what I have done to myself.
In what way does this relate to my posting? Is the troblesome aspect of
being run over by a bus an example of a harshly punative law?
Gene
Carrie wrote:
> At some point this review disappeared, too, maybe someone clued in
> Amazon that the author's wife, using a fake name, pretending to be an
> impartial reader wasn't exactly honest.
On Amazon, one reviewer often comments on another. In my first review,
I pointed out that Gary's wife had admitted she wrote the other review,
and suggested it not be taken too seriously because of that. Shortly
afterwards, both reviews vanished.
kena...@webtv.net
(EDT-3) From: jabe...@yahoo.co.uk (Jim)
harshly punitive laws as a good example of what I have done to myself.
----------------
I believe such thinking leads to fear and guilt.
Unless, I am misunderstanding your point.
I have seen metaphysicans beat themselves bloody because they caught a
cold__or__even worse - their physical body began to show wear and tear.
I spent time blaming myself because
I could not mentally FIX my hip. LOL! When I finally came around to
accepting the fact that
some bodies break down (demonstrating the
law of cause and effect) I began to look for a good doctor whose
thinking was clearer than mine. Thank God for guidance. I found one.
K
Note: Those paper strips and metal discs to which you refer are not good
or bad of themselves. Their meaning and worth lies in the mind of the
beholder. I am grateful I was lead to a doctor who is sensitive to the
human condition and has dedicated 25+ years to finding a way to replace
knees and hips in our bodies with minimum invasion procedure. Do
you think he is worthy of being compensated for time and money spent to
learn new procedures?
----------
=======
Jeanette
"Oh geez. Now Jeanette Wiese speaks for Robert Perry. Something tells
me the Flake alert alarms are ringing in Sedona."
I don't speak for Perry.
(And, for facts, the above has *never* been my name. It's obvious you
are confused about a great deal.)
Perry spoke for himself.
I copied his response in regards to his experience on the ng.
If you didn't read what he has written, himself, in regards this, you
do not know what you are talking about.
"You do know facts? Since when, Jeanette?"
I know a great deal, John, even though you find character assassination
your only way of defending an opinion when another disagrees.
"So what? Its censorship. So what? Its corrupt and unethical"
Anyone can make choices as to their personal, copyrighted material.
"including a Federal judge. That's so what."
No federal judge made any opinion as to Gary and Ken, and the writing
of "Disappearance."
" Sounds like you need to return to school and get a liberal
education."
Let me know when you are capable of intellectual discourse, absent a
need for personal degradation in the name of "facts."
Your writing in these regards has now spiraled down to something not
worth discussing.
Ken continues to teach, Gary continues to write, his publisher
continues to publish, and you continue to do whatever the hell it is
that you do. I reckon the former has more appeal than the latest Lopez
condemnation campaign.
Jeanette
jeanettejoy(at)earthlink(dot)net
My blog: http://thewillingmind.blogspot.com/
A great site for _A Course in Miracles_ discussion:
http://pointofperfection.com/tgp/forums/forum-view.asp?fid=1
*****
Jeanette
"On Amazon, one reviewer often comments on another. In my first review,
I pointed out that Gary's wife had admitted she wrote the other review,
and suggested it not be taken too seriously because of that. Shortly
afterwards, both reviews vanished."
His book has become quite a good seller, and his second on the horizon.
Seems the decision at Amazon unaffected the outcome Gary is
experiencing in the world. Did you think it would?
Jeanette
jeanettejoy(at)earthlink(dot)net
My blog: http://thewillingmind.blogspot.com/
A great site for _A Course in Miracles_ discussion:
http://pointofperfection.com/tgp/forums/forum-view.asp?fid=1
*****
Jeanette
"He doesn't present "information", he tells lies."
I disagree that you know if Gary is lying.
"Claiming that humans coming from Mars"
It is interesting to note commentary in regards to whom and from where
the Earth has been populated. Apparently your only interest is in
scientific endeavor which is only a small slice of the Universal Pie.
"Gee, Hitler wrote a second book too. So what?"
If the best argument you can make is the juvenile and overly expressed
"Hitler" one, I hold doubts as to your intuitive ability.
"for weird points of view contradicting common scientific
understanding."
Sorry, Gene, I have great respect for science. However, science does
not hold the keys for recognizance of God. There is more to the picture
frame than the limited world you would present as so terribly
important.
" Yes, Gary does care about bad reviews, as we could see by his whining
on this very group."
He did, and then he picked up and moved on, following what he felt led
to Do. Others continue to grovel, and complain, about Gary, instead of
focusing on what they need to Do. And I do remember your well "versed"
arguments, Gene. Apparently the rest of the world wasn't impressed.
Neither was I.
Jeanette
jeanettejoy(at)earthlink(dot)net
My blog: http://thewillingmind.blogspot.com/
A great site for _A Course in Miracles_ discussion:
http://pointofperfection.com/tgp/forums/forum-view.asp?fid=1
*****
Doc Theo
Jeanette wrote:
> John,
>
> "Oh geez. Now Jeanette Wiese speaks for Robert Perry. Something tells
> me the Flake alert alarms are ringing in Sedona."
>
> I don't speak for Perry.
Really? It sure sounds like you speak for Perry. Considering Perry
wouldn't use a non-word like "upsetness."
>
> (And, for facts, the above has *never* been my name. It's obvious you
> are confused about a great deal.)
>
> Perry spoke for himself.
>
> I copied his response in regards to his experience on the ng.
>
> If you didn't read what he has written, himself, in regards this, you
> do not know what you are talking about.
Is that right? Then why not post what he wrote rather than offering you
dumb paraphrase.
"Upsetness," is an catagory of emotion. That doesn't mean Robert Perry
doesn't have opinions about Wapnick's former FACIM copyright policy,
nor does it mean that Perry believes that Renard was visited by
ascended master who just happened to spout Wapnickian metaphysics. It
only means he doesn't have the emotional catagory of "upset" attached
to his opinions.
>
> "You do know facts? Since when, Jeanette?"
>
> I know a great deal, John, even though you find character assassination
> your only way of defending an opinion when another disagrees.
ROTFLMAO. Perhaps the number one character assasin in the on line
course community is complaining about "character assasination." Too
funny!!!
>
> "So what? Its censorship. So what? Its corrupt and unethical"
>
> Anyone can make choices as to their personal, copyrighted material.
Really? Is that your studied opinion on corporate censorship?
>
> "including a Federal judge. That's so what."
>
> No federal judge made any opinion as to Gary and Ken, and the writing
> of "Disappearance."
I didn't say a Federal judge ruled on DU. I said it appeared to me that
Judge Sweet found a way to rule against corporate control of spiritual
material. But that's just my opinion.
What's not my opinion is that Renard's "Disapperance" was subjected to
corporate censorship.
>
> " Sounds like you need to return to school and get a liberal
> education."
>
> Let me know when you are capable of intellectual discourse, absent a
> need for personal degradation in the name of "facts."
Really, Jeanette. I checked our thread. The first instant of personal
degradation was yours.
"If you find what Gary has done so disagreeable, perhaps doing
something
of positive note for change in the world might be a better idea than
constantly returning to argument as to why Gary is a fraud."
If you don't wish to digress into the personal then don't start
personal attacks with your very affected persona.
Doc Theo
Jeanette wrote:
> John,
>
> "Oh geez. Now Jeanette Wiese speaks for Robert Perry. Something tells
> me the Flake alert alarms are ringing in Sedona."
>
> I don't speak for Perry.
>
> (And, for facts, the above has *never* been my name. It's obvious you
> are confused about a great deal.)
>
> Perry spoke for himself.
_________________________________
BTW, Jeanette this was the original exchange where you spoke for Perry.
Me:
Robert Perry was denied the use of course quotes for his scholarly
book. And even a pretentious know it like yourself can hardly argue
this wasn't censorship of Robert Perry's work which just happened to
offer an alternative interpretation of ACIM."
Jeanette's reply
Perry has absolutely no argument, upsetness, or quarrel with Ken, Gary,
or the experience of his book, and legal agreements, therein.
What the hell does this non-thought answer have to do with the fact
Perry's book was censored by Wapnick, and Perry wrote at the time that
he was unfairly censored by Wapnick ??
If you wish to be taken seriously, Jeanette then learn to think, rather
than just have an attitude.
Carrie
you think he is worthy of being compensated for time and money spent to
learn new procedures?
Do you think he was needed to "heal" your body and make you feel
better?
What does the course say about making the body and it's problems real,
and then finding ways to fix it?
Do you believe what it says about only unforgiveness being the cause
of all sickness and pain and only unforgiveness being the only cure?
"M-5.II.2. The acceptance of sickness as a decision of the mind, for a
purpose for which it would use the body, is the basis of healing. 2 And
this is so for healing in all forms. 3 A patient decides that this is
so, and he recovers. 4 If he decides against recovery, he will not be
healed. 5 Who is the physician? 6 Only the mind of the patient himself.
7 The outcome is what he decides that it is. 8 Special agents seem to
be ministering to him, yet they but give form to his own choice. 9 He
chooses them in order to bring tangible form to his desires. 10 And it
is this they do, and nothing else. 11 They are not actually needed at
all. 12 The patient could merely rise up without their aid and say, "I
have no use for this." 13 There is no form of sickness that would not
be cured at once."
So, of course, if you believe your body was broken and someone fixed
it, you would believe in paying him for it (or your insurance co, or
someone would) Would you have felt healed and fixed otherwise? It's
part of the way it works. A person, caught up in unforgiveness, is sick
and ion pain. Someone else can do something to fix this, and if not
paid for doing it, it would only create more guilt and unforgiveness
(of self) and wouldn't work. if the "patient" feels they are unworthy
of NOT having pain and being well. Paying (or knowing someone is paid
because of them) is a way of resolving this for all.
Not saying it's wrong or bad it's the way of the world.
I know you took the pledge John started the other night, but John
himself didn't even hold to it longer than one night to the next day.
And, regarldess of how you choose to take it, you brought up the topic
and questions about it, as course discussion and that's how I am
responding to it.
Carrie
something
of positive note for change in the world might be a better idea than
constantly returning to argument as to why Gary is a fraud."
Did anyone say Gary is a fraud?
I must have missed this.
Whatever Gary might be, he is still Gary... doing the best he can at
the time like everyone else.
To me, and my relating with him a few years ago;, he seemed
defensive, like he felt guilty about something he desparately didn't
want to be asked about or have to try and explain. He (and his
supporters which was a cultivated group, some of who seemed to also see
him as a victim of those out to get him, maybe those jealous of his
success and because Ascended Masters didn't come to visit THEM instead?
(LOL) quickly turned those who asked sincere and logical questions
about the story, and pointed out (as Gene did) the scientific facts
might not be the way the visitors (who should know) told it, into
troublemakers and enemies.
If there was nothing to hide and the book was absolute truth, would
someone go through all this to shut up those who questioned it? Most
people who didn't take to the book realized this and did shut up and
let it go. Some said they couldn't get into it, some said it was a cute
story, and they read it like Sci Fi and didn't try and make it seem
real. Some got a lot about ACIM from it, even though to me it screamed
on every page "this is not what ACIIM says".
Of course the lesson with the book was probably more subtle and
overall than what the words said and how Gary seemed to be on
discussion boards.
Nancy
Gene wrote:
> Jeanette wrote:
>
> > Well, I guess you will just have to deal with the fact Gary is becoming
> > increasingly popular, has two books, and the information he presents is
> > accepted by many.
>
> He doesn't present "information", he tells lies. That is neither here
> nor there, except that Wikipedia is a resource for all people, and is
> supposed to adhere to the principles of verifyibility and "NPOV",
> meaning a neutral point of view. Claiming that humans coming from Mars
> does not contradict known science is not NPOV; Wikipedia has the same
> sort of problem with people who want to argue for geocentrism and the
> like, and they are not allowed to make it their private sandbox for
> weird points of view contradicting common scientific understanding.
>
> > The effect Gary has had, even though the information he presents
>
> He does NOT present "infomation". If you don't believe me, look the
> word "information" up in a dictionary.
This pretty much covers it, imo.
> > That's your opinion. His lectures worldwide, which lead to his second
> > book, apparently speak differently.
>
> Gee, Hitler wrote a second book too. So what?
I think he has created quite a career opportunity
for himself.
> > Apparently he is offering something undeniably good.
>
> That's what a lot of people said about Adolf; "popular" does not mean
> "good".
The fact that a person can get people to
"follow" him/her doesn't say anything
about whether his/her message is
"good". If one holds up a carrot -- any
old carrot -- one will probably attract
some jackasses.
n.
J
Nancy wrote:
> > > Apparently he is offering something undeniably good.
> >
> > That's what a lot of people said about Adolf; "popular" does not mean
> > "good".
>
> The fact that a person can get people to
> "follow" him/her doesn't say anything
> about whether his/her message is
> "good". If one holds up a carrot -- any
> old carrot -- one will probably attract
> some jackasses.
>
> n.
What prevents people from testing a statement by seeing if they can
formulate a counter-example which disproves their statement? Sounds
like basic thinking.
What's certain is if the person won't make the effort, then someone
else will do it for them, and make them look foolish.
Gene
Nancy wrote:
> Gene wrote:
> > Gee, Hitler wrote a second book too. So what?
>
> I think he has created quite a career opportunity
> for himself.
Actually, he never even published the damned thing.
Gene
Jeanette wrote:
> Sorry, Gene, I have great respect for science. However, science does
> not hold the keys for recognizance of God. There is more to the picture
> frame than the limited world you would present as so terribly
> important.
What a load of doubletalk. Does science say humans came from Mars? What
is your position on that question?
> He did, and then he picked up and moved on, following what he felt led
> to Do. Others continue to grovel, and complain, about Gary, instead of
> focusing on what they need to Do.
I'm complaining because some people want to piss all over Wikipedia.
That one won't fly.
And I do remember your well "versed"
> arguments, Gene. Apparently the rest of the world wasn't impressed.
> Neither was I.
I care very little about what most people think, assuming they even do,
which is often not the case.
Sheryl Valentine
which is often not the case
-- sv: ha/ha/ -- funny;) nice to see you Gene. Sheryl
www.SherylValentine.com
"Gene" <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150490988.8...@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Carrie
That one won't fly.
It does seem to have the potential for that.
Someone doesn't like someone (for whatever reason) and writes
something not true.
In a way, like this newsgroup, where one any given day the board can
be spammed with lies and well, all I can think of is spewing forth
anger and hate in a negative way. And the idea of using a person's full
name as much as possible in this, which is so it will be sure to come
up in any google searches, even 10 years in the future.
If anyone cared about their reputation on internet discussion boards,
it would be the best way to do damage to them.
Yet most people accept it (and the intent behind it) here.
I'm surprised there aren't enteries on Wikipedia about me, as the
most despised person on the internet.
Factnet is like that, too. I once wrote and asked them how they
verified what people wrote there (like accusing people of being part of
hate groups, who plotted and ganged up on others for fun) and was told
they don't. They just make it known that whatever anyone posts is just
their own take on it, and nothing any official website (cult or anti
cult watch list) has anyone on, or checks into and verifies the truth
about. The site is mainly for entertainment purposes and anyone can
write anything they want about anyone. Though I was told if anyone
used a real name on it, and the person objected they would take it off.
So, people write crap on factnet, in an effort to slant "facts"
and everyone is supposed to know it's NOT fact, it's for entertainment
only. Yet the name of it is FACTNET.
Only on the internet... when anyone can buy and register a domain
name that nobody else has gotten first.
Wikipedia seems like a massive project. Good luck with it and
keeping it honest and fair.
Jeanette
"What a load of doubletalk. Does science say humans came from Mars?
What is your position on that question?"
My position is science is a limited belief system, and has nothing to
do with the true laws of the universe, which have more foundation in
what is designed and defined as metaphysics.
What your system of belief, that is, all must be reckoned in terms and
definitions of what science holds to be true, is quite limited in
perspective to time, spacial relationships, origination of souls, as
beings, and then populated as, for example, on Earth, in human form.
An arrogance which holds the scientific evidence presented on planet
Earth holds any water in regards to the nature and manifestation of
Creation, the function of time, and further, the interdimensional means
of using spacial relationships in terms of travel, and experience, only
serves to make boundaries beyond which few deem to venture.
And many people do think, Gene, in ways beyond your skeptism, that all
must fit nice and neat into scientific definition, yet, they simply
have allowed their thoughts to transcend what the 2006 scientific
community would ask they hold as true.
"I'm complaining because some people want to piss all over Wikipedia."
Complaining is obviously what you do, but it really doesn't assist in
your mind expanding beyond the "comforts" of scientific surroundings.
Jeanette
jeanettejoy(at)earthlink(dot)net
My blog: http://thewillingmind.blogspot.com/
A great site for _A Course in Miracles_ discussion:
http://pointofperfection.com/tgp/forums/forum-view.asp?fid=1
*****
Jeanette
"If you don't wish to digress into the personal then don't start
personal attacks with your very affected persona."
I'm beginning to find it isn't topic or content which begs your
interest, yet any format to project your rage seems the avenue you take
in communication.
As far as Perry goes, he has a website, you can email him, and ask him
for his essay in regards to the matter you find begs anger from
everyone when indeed it simply does not.
Perry does not hold the kind of anger or rage you do in regards to the
matter. I can assure you of that. His explanation and forgiveness is
exemplary on the matter. Good instruction for everyone.
Obviously, I have no further comment for you on this matter. You seem
to want to set a table of discourse, on whatever topic is at hand, so
you can start throwing forks. No thank you.
Jeanette
jeanettejoy(at)earthlink(dot)net
My blog: http://thewillingmind.blogspot.com/
A great site for _A Course in Miracles_ discussion:
http://pointofperfection.com/tgp/forums/forum-view.asp?fid=1
*****