i'll throw a bone
jason
i'll admit that ACIM is at times, far out there.
i'll admit that it's tough to believe in channelling.
i'll admit that it can be a very confusing document.
i'll admit that i really don't think it's a PERFECT document, either.
i'll admit that it'd be hard for a non-christian to get into and in
that sense it might be somewhat exclusionary of others (such as
muslims, jews, hindus ect...)
i'll even admit that if one were to criticize it for being a bit
'elitist', i might not totally disagree....'elitist' from the
standpoint of the high falutin verbiage and style it's written in.
i would even cop to the fact that i believe there are those (in the
beginning) who didn't mind at all the idea of publishing ACIM would be
profitable, and that there are those today and in the past who are keen
on the profitability part.
but,
i am having a really hard time believing it's a NEGATIVE or HARMFUL
thing for me or anyone else.
i am having a really hard time believing it's a CIA cult thing too.
Chuck
"i am having a really hard time believing it's a NEGATIVE or HARMFUL
thing for me or anyone else.
i am having a really hard time believing it's a CIA cult thing too."
If we can, let's confine your first statement above to you. I think it
is possible that someone can go through ACIM and not perceive it as
having a negative or harmful effect on them. But at this point, we're
into comparatives, as in what was the situation before ACIM and what is
the situation after the encounter and how does that situation continue
to manifest. To illustrate, we humans can build boxes around ourselves
based on almost anything and if ACIM is used to "build a box" around
oneself, I would consider that a negative or harmful result.
As for the CIA cult thing, I think this is something that is still a
work in progress. But I ask you to consider that the only source of
first hand information that is available is what Helen, Bill, and Ken
have related about their experiences with the creation of the course.
>From these accounts, the course has been given the status and promoted
by many as "divinely originated" material. On the other side, we have
testimony by many other individuals about what the CIA was up to during
this period of time, documents supporting that testimony, documents
specifically linking other work that Helen, Bill and another co-worker
were doing for the CIA. While I don't claim that this is sufficient to
close the case, if it doesn't create some doubt worth looking into
openly, I doubt a closed case with a smoking gun would do anything for
you either. Independent of any work I've done related to the CIA cult
thing, looking into what was being done in the various CIA programs is
a real eye opener and valuable to me in and of itself.
Noggin
"jason" <clark_ke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121229559.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hi Jason,
That's such a huge departure you just made from the standard cult operating procedure. When
you're willing to open your mind to the comments and opinions of others, even just a little bit,
you are laying the foundation for productive and meaningful discussion. Suddenly your mind isn't
a locked down steel trap under morter assault against the conflicting opinions of others, and
nothing but good can come from that. This might be the first post ever on trcm in which there is
no ad hominem against the critics. To me, that means that you suddenly have no "ad hominem"
against yourself for allowing in thoughts that are in conflict with your dogma.
If you keep that up, you'll find yourself at a point where disagreement won't have such a huge
emotional charge, and that condition is really the foundation of all wars, small and large, so
you just took a significant step toward peace within yourself and between you and others. Bravo!
What you've done is granted us the "right" to disagree with the believers, granted that
questioning, doubting, and researching it isn't some twisted and bizarre state to be in, and in
doing so you just granted yourself the same right, and that lets in a lot of fresh air and a lot
of hot air out.
That is the line that I draw with others in my interactions and discussions about matters that
are soley a matter of individual preference in belief. Right now, I don't have any axe to grind
with you, and I suddenly respect your opinions, even those I don't agree with, even though I may
continue to question your process of arriving at them, as all thinkers in quest of the truth must
do.
Beyond that point, the discussion becomes academic, and the question is, do you want or need to
have it? We've reached a point of fundamental mutual respect for our rights and abilities to
think clearly and approach conflict with a sense of purpose.
So, my question to you is, do you want to continue the discussion, and if so, for what purpose?
Because right now, your personal beliefs have led you to a place that I don't have any issue
with. Right now, in this moment anyway. It's MY issue to pursue information about ACIM and
other belief systems of questionable authority. Is it yours? That's the question. Because at
this point, I feel no big urge to be sparring with you about it, but I'm more than happy to
continue to discuss the process by which I arrived at my conclusions on the matter, if you
continue to interact in this manner. I have no need to convince you that ACIM came from a CIA
think tank, it's your decision whether or not to invest in thinking along those lines.
The information that led three of us here, and others elsewhere to SIMILAR conclusions is all
over this newgroup, and all over the internet. I didn't arrive at it because someone out debated
me. It arrived to me, really, because it all started to unfold as a result of unrelated
interests, and because so much of it arrived, it became an interest unto itself for me. I think
I can safely speak for both Chuck and Bidhati in saying that they weren't ever out looking for it
either, but that they both found certain pieces of information compelling enough to encourage
them to pursue the project of trying to piece the puzzle together.
As with all research, there comes a point where those engaged in it will start to compare notes
and test each other's theories. From that process, if done with objectivity and a committment to
the same standards of testing, will usually come a working theory that has enough substance to it
that it's worth publishing as an informational tool for further research. That's somewhere about
where Chuck and I are on this issue. It does not say that we have proved our theory, only that
we've tossed around enough information to establish that we have a valid enough working theory
to warrant more input and further research.
None of this has anything to do with me, Chuck, and Bidhati being bitter ex-culties, having axes
to grind, being mentally unstable, hateful, fearful, and only really in need of love and
understanding from strangers we don't much like over the internet, one person posing as three
people, or any of us being anyone but who we claim to be. This is a topic of interest to all of
us for varying and more substantial reasons. Chuck does not regard himself as an ex-cultie.
Other than the traditional religious "cults", I don't know that he's ever been in a good working
cult, if he his, he hasn't identified it or shared the details with me. Bidhati and I are both
confessed ex-culties, but we also had our own unique experiences and reasons for wanting out from
under the belief systems that we now know did not serve us, and by all indication don't serve
anyone. Those are the circumstances of our reasons for pursuing information that would lead to
valid conclusions about where ACIM came from and what its purpose and function is.. None of the
information has an emotional charge for us beyond the sense of satisfaction anyone gets from
researching any topic. I, me, myself, personally, continue to have anger about the many
cultified manipulations, indoctrinations, and erosions of self-evident freedoms that arise from
ACIM groups and similar belief systems, but that's me. (just in case you missed it!) I don't
apologize for, or seek to deny or subvert my anger, because it's a healthy anger, and it fuels a
lot of productive thinking and activity for me, as it's intended to do by whatever brilliance
created me. I can't speak for Chuck, Bidhati, or anyone else on that issue, unless they clearly
state it.
So, after all that bloviating, what I'm asking you is if you're sure you want to discuss this
with me. I'm speaking for myself, and asking what I would like to know before committing to
having further direct discussions with you on the topic. I'd like to know if there's a purpose
to it that serves both of our needs and desires, that's all. Right now, I don't feel any
strong needs or desires for anything further from you other than what you've just provided, and
on that note, I will simply thank you for it, and I will now stop bloviating!
Did you have a fun birthday?
A
> Jason:
> "i am having a really hard time believing it's a NEGATIVE or HARMFUL
> thing for me or anyone else.
>
> i am having a really hard time believing it's a CIA cult thing too."
>
> If we can, let's confine your first statement above to you. I think it
> is possible that someone can go through ACIM and not perceive it as
> having a negative or harmful effect on them. But at this point, we're
> into comparatives, as in what was the situation before ACIM and what is
> the situation after the encounter and how does that situation continue
> to manifest. To illustrate, we humans can build boxes around ourselves
> based on almost anything and if ACIM is used to "build a box" around
> oneself, I would consider that a negative or harmful result.
But the question is, is it ACIM that's the
cause, or is ACIM being used as an excuse?
I ask this, because many things that would
be considered healthy if used properly, no
doubt can be unhealthy if used improperly.
Christianity, for instance, has been given
as a reason to build hospitals and give to
to the poor, while alternately being cited
as the reason to promote slavery, or anti-
gay violence. A glass of wine with a meal,
has been credited with many benefits. Then
again we know the result of over drinking.
ACIM doesn't exist in a newsgroup. It does
manifest itself in the real life of people
outside of it, however. I know a number of
people who study ACIM, and by and large it
has helped them, enormously. Interestingly
enough, the ones who seem really messed up
in their personal lives usually spout some
quotes from it, but when you actually have
some deep conversation about it with them,
you almost always discover that theirs was
a superficial study, so most of them never
bothered to do the workbook, which is what
creates the changes this curriculum seeks.
If you're looking to do a case study, your
time is being wasted here. It would be the
equivalent of looking at a handful of some
dozen or so posters in alt.democracy.talk,
in order to see the effect of democracy in
the lives of those who live in one. No one
in their right mind would assume that such
a study would be worthwhile, but here you,
Katie, & Bitshita are, trying nonetheless.
As for "building a box around oneself", we
see this in many newsgroups on the web. It
has much less to do with the topic than it
has to do with the poster's participating.
J
is possible that someone can go through ACIM and not perceive it as
having a negative or harmful effect on them. But at this point, we're
into comparatives, as in what was the situation before ACIM and what is
the situation after the encounter and how does that situation continue
to manifest."
ROTFLMAO. Gee, "Chuck." What expertise do either you or Katie claim to
judge "harmful effects?" As far as I can see you claim an expertise in
French wine and Kate Vollmer has a degree in French. Hardly degrees or
expertise in psychology. One could make a much stronger case that
blatantly seeking out people of faith in order to trash and smear their
beliefs is a well established, and well know harmful effect
---religious intolerance and religious baiting.
Strange isn't it? You are looking for harmful effects from Course study
but can't show any behavior by anyone which has been associated with
Course study and which could be construed as anti-social or criminal.
In fact, there is every reason to believe based on Course teachings,
Course students are far more ethical and less violent than even a
normal human. Yet, you associate with a well know neurotic
"anti-cultist," whose behavior would be criminal in Canada and Europe.
So I will re-state for anyone confused. The anonomous poster "Chuck,"
is an associate of Katie Dean Vollermer, wife of Ted Vollmer of North
Carolina. Vollmer runs a self-proclaimed anti-cult activist group,
called Cosmic Fool. Both Vollmer and her group are on Factnets' watch
list for hate cults, because of the use of blatant hate tactics to
advance her intolerance of the spiritual beliefs of others.
"Chuck," and Katie Dean Vollmer act as a disinformation team to promote
nonsense like A Course in Miracles was written by the CIA and Course
study is somehow harmful, yet somehow never address the numerous public
complaints about the hate tactics which places Katie Dean and Cosmic
Fool on Factnet's watch list for hate cults.
In short, "Chuck" and Katie Dean Vollmer are well know hate cultists
and religous baiters and volumes of archievd public post can show this
is true.
J
"anti-cult" advocacy group, Cosmic Fool are blatant example of
religious cults and religious bigots hiding
behind the banner of authentic anti-cult advocacy.
The facts are Cosmic Fool is an entirely bogus front organization for
Dean's religious intolerance. Her group and her vulgar, obscene
baitings of people of religious faith are not endorsed by any authentic
"anti-cult" advocacy group such as Factnet. By Factnet's own written
code of conduct which are a standard in the authentic
"anti-cult"advocacy movement, Dean's organized, vulgar baiting of
religious people is entirely unethical, and can indeed be an example of
cultic behavior itself.
As such Dean and Cosmic Fool have been placed
on a Factnet DB watch list of "anti-cult-cults," because of numerous
complaints about her vulgar, obscene and disruptive behavior toward
people of religious faith. Clearly, Katie Dean and Cosmic Fool are
nothing more than an anti-cult, Hate cult. Thousands of archieved
public posts by Katie Dean demonstrate this is the case.
Katie Dean Vollmer has made herself a public figure by presenting
herself the head of an anti-cult advocacy group. Strange, that
Dean-Vollmer hides her public actions, behind aliases, when the
religious groups she targets as cults, all have full public, published
contact information and can be easily contacted at any time.
Considering Katie Dean Vollmer's bizarre unethical behavior, combined
with her use of aliases and extreme secrecy about contact information,
it hard to view Katie Dean-Vollmer as anything but another Internet nut
case and malcontent, and her anti-cult group, Cosmic Fool as simply a
Hate cult, which has unfortunately chosen to target student/readers of
A Course in Miracles.
In contrast, the publishers of A Course in Miracles simply publish a
book and the Course Community of student/readers, have no controlling
organization, dogma, or charismatic leader which are commonly
associated with the term cult. Students and readers can either choose
to read or not read A Course in Miracles. In fact, it would be hard to
find any grass-roots spiritual movement that less fulfills the criteria
of a cult than A Course in Miracles.
Such disruptive, militant atheistic, disinformation tactics by Katie
Dean Vollmer have necesitated many former posters of TRCM to create a
moderated newgroup for Course discussion. If you'd like to log a
complaint about Katie Dean Vollmer's religious bigotry
go to http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/8798.html
Complaints will help establish a permanent public record of Katie Dean
Vollmer's and Cosmic Fool's Hate cult activity.
Chuck
> Chuck wrote:
>
> > Jason:
> > "i am having a really hard time believing it's a NEGATIVE or HARMFUL
> > thing for me or anyone else.
> >
> > i am having a really hard time believing it's a CIA cult thing too."
> >
> > If we can, let's confine your first statement above to you. I think it
> > is possible that someone can go through ACIM and not perceive it as
> > having a negative or harmful effect on them. But at this point, we're
> > into comparatives, as in what was the situation before ACIM and what is
> > the situation after the encounter and how does that situation continue
> > to manifest. To illustrate, we humans can build boxes around ourselves
> > based on almost anything and if ACIM is used to "build a box" around
> > oneself, I would consider that a negative or harmful result.
>
> But the question is, is it ACIM that's the
> cause, or is ACIM being used as an excuse?
>
> I ask this, because many things that would
> be considered healthy if used properly, no
> doubt can be unhealthy if used improperly.
We really don't have a way of knowing whether it's been studied
"properly" or "improperly" or an agreement on the meaning of those
words. The course defines a way to study, but there is disagreement
about that among the course proponents. Like any interpretation,
there's no way to measure "proper". And here you've opened up one of
the puzzles for me in that Helen and Bill were familiar with PAS and
how it could be used to assess results, but chose to avoid the trouble
of testing out their creation before releasing it, in spite of their
professional ethical responsibility to do so. As a point of reference,
many traditional course text books (school) are "trialed" before they
are released for general publication. That wasn't done either.
> Christianity, for instance, has been given
> as a reason to build hospitals and give to
> to the poor, while alternately being cited
> as the reason to promote slavery, or anti-
> gay violence. A glass of wine with a meal,
> has been credited with many benefits. Then
> again we know the result of over drinking.
>
> ACIM doesn't exist in a newsgroup. It does
> manifest itself in the real life of people
> outside of it, however. I know a number of
> people who study ACIM, and by and large it
> has helped them, enormously. Interestingly
> enough, the ones who seem really messed up
> in their personal lives usually spout some
> quotes from it, but when you actually have
> some deep conversation about it with them,
> you almost always discover that theirs was
> a superficial study, so most of them never
> bothered to do the workbook, which is what
> creates the changes this curriculum seeks.
My reading of the material is that it is that the workbook is a key
component in order to effect whatever changes are intended.
> If you're looking to do a case study, your
> time is being wasted here. It would be the
> equivalent of looking at a handful of some
> dozen or so posters in alt.democracy.talk,
> in order to see the effect of democracy in
> the lives of those who live in one. No one
> in their right mind would assume that such
> a study would be worthwhile, but here you,
> Katie, & Bitshita are, trying nonetheless.
You keep bringing this up, and I keep saying that you aren't reflecting
what I'm up to. I have acknowledged that this newsgroup does not
constitute a sufficient sample size for me to draw any valid
statistical conclusions.
> As for "building a box around oneself", we
> see this in many newsgroups on the web. It
> has much less to do with the topic than it
> has to do with the poster's participating.
I think the topic does have an influence, particularly in this case. Is
it not the expectation of the Course that the Course student will "put
ACIM into practice", whatever that might mean? I get this impression
from the teacher's manual and there have been many comments here
suggesting to me that some have this perception as well.
Richard A. Thayer
Chuck wrote:
And here you've opened up one of
> the puzzles for me in that Helen and Bill were familiar with PAS and
> how it could be used to assess results, but chose to avoid the trouble
> of testing out their creation before releasing it, in spite of their
> professional ethical responsibility to do so.
OK, so the psudeo scientists ( which most
psychologists really are) didn't do their science
up to Chuck.
Seems to me, doesn't it to you, they
were caught in an energy of religion or
its associations. ( not explainable
by the same 'tests" ) and almost out of sync
with the differing human personalities they were.
That energy won't fit totally into science
categories. Sorry.
H&Bill,
both, for whatever reasons, climbed into a boat
that didn't always have scientific oars and never
really told anyone why. It is rather fun to watch
an intellectual (you) try to make it an
"intellect's"
process. It wasn't that !
Religion is a lot like sailing. Why do men climb
in tiny boats and take on the Atlantic ocean?
The vast unknown where looking at the stars is
the navigation system! Modern instruments cast
aside...more often than not.
The answer always comes up,
they do it, because they CAN. .
the mind is not shut off from what seems to
be the impossible.
Can you acknowledge that MAN, being a complex
being and not just a mental amoeba, wants that
too? An association with the UNknown.
If not, you will
be at this with your nutpick and magnifying glass
eternally. And others will be tacking up those
sails and heading straight for challenges the
cautious mind couldn't be bought to try-- no matter
how carefully someone-- even you-- might
explain or call out--
W A T C H OUT!
MR Chuck. In life:
1)Things you can understand.
2)Things you can't understand.
3) B O T H.
It is , however, very interesting to watch you
dissect cadavers, looking for clues to explain
other's past lives.
You are selecting dead people.
Fossil images.
Not their bones but other's tales,
made up of the illusory content of memories and
once, fragmentally- shared events....
Interesting. ... you're um, slightly hooked,
definitely not unhooked and more into
it than some of the avowed students! ;-)
As a point of reference,
> many traditional course text books (school) are "trialed" before they
> are released for general publication. That wasn't done either.
>
LOL LOL LOL
You haven't been around anyone getting "the
call", the nudge, the experience! LOL.
The eyes glaze the life gets tumbled over and
whoosh one lets out little parts of oneself---
to hell with explaning..
>
>
> I think the topic does have an influence, particularly in this case. Is
> it not the expectation of the Course that the Course student will "put
> ACIM into practice",
And on that you can relax. Ain't no one around
puts it ALL into practice , in your lifetime!
You'll not be hypnotized by a full practitioner.
You're safe.
Only bitsies and pieces though. Careful! LOL
And btw,
your scientific research needs a better laboratory.
Here,
You've stumbled into an awkward to
translate clump of ideas and personalities,
where many greenhorns are trying to be many
things they aren't ready to sustain.
you are totally S A F E though.
Because you have your box.
And it is called l o g i c .
And I find it very interesting to watch you work
and work solely within its confines. ( well,
save for a fanciful takeoff into creative writing
as you once did.)
keep on dissecting...
it is much fun to read.
LINDA T
Tom Fox
Helen and Bill were familiar with PAS and how it could be used to
assess results, but chose to avoid the trouble of testing out their
creation before releasing it, in spite of their professional ethical
responsibility to do so."
~ There's an easy solution to your puzzle. The "professional ethical
responsibility" you assume to exist does not actually exist.
See: U.S. Bill of Rights.
A
> A wrote:
>
>>Chuck wrote:
>>
>>>Jason:
>>>"i am having a really hard time believing it's a NEGATIVE or HARMFUL
>>>thing for me or anyone else.
>>>
>>>i am having a really hard time believing it's a CIA cult thing too."
>>>
>>>If we can, let's confine your first statement above to you. I think it
>>>is possible that someone can go through ACIM and not perceive it as
>>>having a negative or harmful effect on them. But at this point, we're
>>>into comparatives, as in what was the situation before ACIM and what is
>>>the situation after the encounter and how does that situation continue
>>>to manifest. To illustrate, we humans can build boxes around ourselves
>>>based on almost anything and if ACIM is used to "build a box" around
>>>oneself, I would consider that a negative or harmful result.
>>
>>But the question is, is it ACIM that's the
>>cause, or is ACIM being used as an excuse?
>>
>>I ask this, because many things that would
>>be considered healthy if used properly, no
>>doubt can be unhealthy if used improperly.
>
> We really don't have a way of knowing whether it's been studied
> "properly" or "improperly" or an agreement on the meaning of those
> words. The course defines a way to study, but there is disagreement
> about that among the course proponents.
That's a good point. You don't know. What
you have is a newsgroup of a few posters.
There's a disagreement on some words, but
it's there's a concenses on most of them.
> Like any interpretation,
> there's no way to measure "proper". And here you've opened up one of
> the puzzles for me in that Helen and Bill were familiar with PAS and
> how it could be used to assess results, but chose to avoid the trouble
> of testing out their creation before releasing it, in spite of their
> professional ethical responsibility to do so. As a point of reference,
> many traditional course text books (school) are "trialed" before they
> are released for general publication. That wasn't done either.
I disagree. If they believed they had the
divine guidance they claimed, it would be
academic (forgive the pun) at that point.
>>Christianity, for instance, has been given
>>as a reason to build hospitals and give to
>>to the poor, while alternately being cited
>>as the reason to promote slavery, or anti-
>>gay violence. A glass of wine with a meal,
>>has been credited with many benefits. Then
>>again we know the result of over drinking.
>>
>>ACIM doesn't exist in a newsgroup. It does
>>manifest itself in the real life of people
>>outside of it, however. I know a number of
>>people who study ACIM, and by and large it
>>has helped them, enormously. Interestingly
>>enough, the ones who seem really messed up
>>in their personal lives usually spout some
>>quotes from it, but when you actually have
>>some deep conversation about it with them,
>>you almost always discover that theirs was
>>a superficial study, so most of them never
>>bothered to do the workbook, which is what
>>creates the changes this curriculum seeks.
>
> My reading of the material is that it is that the workbook is a key
> component in order to effect whatever changes are intended.
Here's a quote addessing just that point:
"A theoretical foundation such as the text
provides is necessary as a framework to make
the exercises in this workbook meaningful.
Yet it is doing the exercises that will make
the goal of the course possible. An untrained
mind can accomplish nothing. It is the purpose
of this workbook to train your mind to think
along the lines the text sets forth."
>>If you're looking to do a case study, your
>>time is being wasted here. It would be the
>>equivalent of looking at a handful of some
>>dozen or so posters in alt.democracy.talk,
>>in order to see the effect of democracy in
>>the lives of those who live in one. No one
>>in their right mind would assume that such
>>a study would be worthwhile, but here you,
>>Katie, & Bitshita are, trying nonetheless.
>
> You keep bringing this up, and I keep saying that you aren't reflecting
> what I'm up to. I have acknowledged that this newsgroup does not
> constitute a sufficient sample size for me to draw any valid
> statistical conclusions.
I missed that post, and I appreciate this.
Katie and Bitshiti, however, don't believe
that little statistical point's a problem.
>>As for "building a box around oneself", we
>>see this in many newsgroups on the web. It
>>has much less to do with the topic than it
>>has to do with the poster's participating.
>
> I think the topic does have an influence, particularly in this case. Is
> it not the expectation of the Course that the Course student will "put
> ACIM into practice", whatever that might mean? I get this impression
> from the teacher's manual and there have been many comments here
> suggesting to me that some have this perception as well.
It's the expectation, just like when Jesus
said "love thy neighbor as thyself" it was
the expectation that they would or should,
but 2,000 years of history tells us that a
small percentage has put it into practice.
"All are called, but few choose to listen".
Noggin
"Tom Fox" <Nos...@aso.moc> wrote in message news:33tcd1l2qsru0falu...@4ax.com...
What does the Bill of Rights have to do with professional ethics?
Ethics MEANS doing the right thing even if you don't have to. Something no ACIMite of my
acquaintance would know nothing about. Especially the Professional Promiser/Claimers on False
Authority among you who can't make money the ethical way.
Tom Fox
"Tom Fox" <Nos...@aso.moc> wrote in message
news:33tcd1l2qsru0falu...@4ax.com...
> Chuck "And here you've opened up one of the puzzles for me in that
> Helen and Bill were familiar with PAS and how it could be used to
> assess results, but chose to avoid the trouble of testing out their
> creation before releasing it, in spite of their professional ethical
> responsibility to do so."
>
> ~ There's an easy solution to your puzzle. The "professional
ethical
> responsibility" you assume to exist does not actually exist.
>
> See: U.S. Bill of Rights.
Kate "What does the Bill of Rights have to do with professional
ethics? Ethics MEANS doing the right thing even if you don't have to.
Something no ACIMite of my acquaintance would know nothing about.
Especially the Professional Promiser/Claimers on False Authority among
you who can't make money the ethical way."
~ Here's a logic and English language refresher for you: If doing
something in a certain way is not a violation of professional ethics,
then actually doing it that way is not unethical. Doing something that
is not unethical means that doing it was ethical.
~ Within the generally accepted understanding of right and wrong
behavior, the word "ethical" means that one in fact did the "right
thing." That is part of the definition of "ethical."
~ Therefore, your attempt to categorically equate ethical behavior
with doing the "wrong thing" is nonsensical.
Nancy
My understanding is that it was circulated
privately, and feedback solicited, for some
time prior to publication. I imagine that
this would be a matter of record somewhere.
n.
Nancy
My understanding is that it was circulated
Richard A. Thayer
They were psychologists, right?
I can put a Netscape search in with the words
{ethical procedures for Psychologists}
and come up with some for 1992.
I bet there were some in the 1970's, too.
After all elitist thinkers had been thru
the mill with the McCarthy investigations
by then, universities functioned with
rules and restrictions , these 2
were university staff, using university
facilities for their private project.
They didn't channel in
Helen's living room, right?
The use of educational facitilites
or institutions for private
businesses endeavors or after hours
projects were not always a flat
out given.. Some nightly frolicking
of a seance type nature would have been
considered a little suspect! And of course
Helen and Bill immedately each bought their own
personal typewriters for this project???
Don't bet on it! LOL
Probably there's an
ethical proceudre or 2 somewhere
in the confines of their university
even then about some of their proceedures.
Still, IMHO,
nobody'd be messing with some of this
topic today
if that weak
"there must be a better way" explanation
wasn't added into the introduction
It sits there like a clunky log, as
if the book somehow was written for
the sole purpose of solving
Helen's disuptes with her faculty.
But what's new?
There's enough iffy laundry around
this bag of clothes called the course
same as anything organized into a religious
"movement".
Think of how many outfits one can find
digging around in the laundry bag
of recently re- found addenda
"scraps". Trying to make it too clean
and pure to please the skeptic will not
really work. No matter how many stars
are in the eyes..
But we know that those that are dazzled with
it are out on another loop of energy just
waiting to fly in with their super duper
dust busters, that is their mission--
and so now they will have their say,
next,
and the wheel will go round and round ;-)
LINDA T
>
>
Tom Fox
in the confines of their university even then about some of their
proceedures."
~ Try to follow the conversation, Linda. Chuck was puzzled that Bill
and Helen did not comply with their ethical obligation to assess the
effectiveness of "A Course in Miracles" before publication. I pointed
out that no such ethical obligation existed.
~ I did not suggest that Helen and Bill did not have *any* ethical
obligations.
~ In fact, I'd say that Helen and Bill acted unethically by going
along with and promoting the fiction that the published version was
virtually the same as the original dictation.
~ They may have screwed Columbia University out of some paper and
typewriter ribbons too. Big deal not.
Chuck
> Chuck wrote:
>
> And here you've opened up one of
> > the puzzles for me in that Helen and Bill were familiar with PAS and
> > how it could be used to assess results, but chose to avoid the trouble
> > of testing out their creation before releasing it, in spite of their
> > professional ethical responsibility to do so.
>
> OK, so the psudeo scientists ( which most
> psychologists really are) didn't do their science
> up to Chuck.
I don't see that they did much of any science.
> Seems to me, doesn't it to you, they
> were caught in an energy of religion or
> its associations. ( not explainable
> by the same 'tests" ) and almost out of sync
> with the differing human personalities they were.
> That energy won't fit totally into science
> categories. Sorry.
It's not clear to me that they were caught in an energy of religion or
its associations. I have strong doubts based on how things evolved,
particularly with Helen. It's a nice story, and assuming that context,
science doesn't help much with the answers. Why assume that context?
> H&Bill,
> both, for whatever reasons, climbed into a boat
> that didn't always have scientific oars and never
> really told anyone why. It is rather fun to watch
> an intellectual (you) try to make it an
> "intellect's"
> process. It wasn't that !
If the presumption is that it was an intellectual process from the
start, counter to the public story, then it seems appropriate to use
the tools of logic and reason. I enjoy mysteries.
Now, to make this into a dialog, what motivation was there for you to
pick up ACIM and on what basis do you think it was an energy of
religion or its associations?
> Religion is a lot like sailing. Why do men climb
> in tiny boats and take on the Atlantic ocean?
> The vast unknown where looking at the stars is
> the navigation system! Modern instruments cast
> aside...more often than not.
> The answer always comes up,
>
> they do it, because they CAN. .
> the mind is not shut off from what seems to
> be the impossible.
>
> Can you acknowledge that MAN, being a complex
> being and not just a mental amoeba, wants that
> too? An association with the UNknown.
I'm not denying any of this as general statements. As general
statements, I think they can be applied to anything, including what I'm
doing that you're questioning. If they are applied to anything as an
explanation, there's not much sense that can be made about much of
anything that can be shared.
> If not, you will
> be at this with your nutpick and magnifying glass
> eternally. And others will be tacking up those
> sails and heading straight for challenges the
> cautious mind couldn't be bought to try-- no matter
> how carefully someone-- even you-- might
> explain or call out--
> W A T C H OUT!
>
> MR Chuck. In life:
> 1)Things you can understand.
> 2)Things you can't understand.
> 3) B O T H.
>
> It is , however, very interesting to watch you
> dissect cadavers, looking for clues to explain
> other's past lives.
> You are selecting dead people.
> Fossil images.
> Not their bones but other's tales,
> made up of the illusory content of memories and
> once, fragmentally- shared events....
>
>
> Interesting. ... you're um, slightly hooked,
> definitely not unhooked and more into
> it than some of the avowed students! ;-)
Like I said, I like mysteries.
> As a point of reference,
> > many traditional course text books (school) are "trialed" before they
> > are released for general publication. That wasn't done either.
> >
> LOL LOL LOL
>
> You haven't been around anyone getting "the
> call", the nudge, the experience! LOL.
Bad assumption.
> The eyes glaze the life gets tumbled over and
> whoosh one lets out little parts of oneself---
> to hell with explaning..
Good choice, thank you.
> > I think the topic does have an influence, particularly in this case. Is
> > it not the expectation of the Course that the Course student will "put
> > ACIM into practice",
>
> And on that you can relax. Ain't no one around
> puts it ALL into practice , in your lifetime!
> You'll not be hypnotized by a full practitioner.
> You're safe.
>
> Only bitsies and pieces though. Careful! LOL
>
> And btw,
> your scientific research needs a better laboratory.
> Here,
> You've stumbled into an awkward to
> translate clump of ideas and personalities,
> where many greenhorns are trying to be many
> things they aren't ready to sustain.
>
> you are totally S A F E though.
>
> Because you have your box.
>
> And it is called l o g i c .
I know this box well, but there's so much more. For this exercise, it
comes to fore.
> And I find it very interesting to watch you work
> and work solely within its confines. ( well,
> save for a fanciful takeoff into creative writing
> as you once did.)
It's all the same ingredients, just varying the proportions and how
long it simmers.
> keep on dissecting...
> it is much fun to read.
Good, I'm having fun as well. But it's likely that the time I'll spend
here and on the fossil images will be truncated over the next few
weeks. The new Potter book is coming out this weekend, I have copy
ordered, and I will have to comb it for new magic techniques. I'm
specializing in the Defense Against the Dark Force, and am expected to
have an analysis in this area ready for the August 19th Harry Potter
Circle meeting at Big Belly Bob's.
Speaking of fossils, I'm partial to AMMONITES.
Noggin
"Tom Fox" <Nos...@aso.moc> wrote in message news:sa0dd1liq5bigpm01...@4ax.com...
>
> ~ Therefore, your attempt to categorically equate ethical behavior
> with doing the "wrong thing" is nonsensical.
Given that the evaluation of "nonsensical" is offered from a Career Snake Oil Salesman and Soul
Thief, I'll consider the source.
Carry on with your offerings of convenient wanking material for those who prefer to wank rather
than think. Maybe someone else feels like playing silly semantical games with you, but I don't.
Nancy
> We really don't have a way of knowing whether it's been studied
> "properly" or "improperly" or an agreement on the meaning of those
> words. The course defines a way to study, but there is disagreement
> about that among the course proponents. Like any interpretation,
> there's no way to measure "proper". And here you've opened up one of
> the puzzles for me in that Helen and Bill were familiar with PAS and
> how it could be used to assess results, but chose to avoid the trouble
> of testing out their creation before releasing it, in spite of their
> professional ethical responsibility to do so. As a point of reference,
> many traditional course text books (school) are "trialed" before they
> are released for general publication. That wasn't done either.
Since the ultimate aim of the PAS
(Personality Assessment System) is
to provide insights into personality
structure and function based on objective
test data, and since Bill Thetford was a
recognized authority on this relatively new
(at the time) tool, it is probable that
extensive testing was, indeed, done if the
backer of "Project ACIM" was the CIA.
I think that Mike Byson (Mikedownunder) has
quite a bit of material on Bill's and Helen's
academic work. You might try contacting him.
Also, I'm wondering if you or Katie or Bidhati
has made any effort to contact Ken and get
his feedback on what was going on within that
psych department at that time. He might
surprise you with some candid info.
I've also found Jerry Jampolsky and the
Foundation for Attitudinal Healing to be
extremely open to questions.
> My reading of the material is that
> it is that the workbook is a key
> component in order to effect what-
> ever changes are intended.
Yes.
> I have acknowledged that this news
> group does not constitute a sufficient
> sample size for me to draw any valid
> statistical conclusions.
It's not only the sample size that's the
problem. All of you, but especially Katie
and Bidhati have telegraphed your opinions
so strongly within this newsgroup that you
have corrupted any potential data you might
collect. As well, these um... strongly
stated opinions are not the stuff that
adds to one's academic credibility.
> > As for "building a box around oneself", we
> > see this in many newsgroups on the web. It
> > has much less to do with the topic than it
> > has to do with the poster's participating.
Exactly what process does this term "building
a box around oneself" refer to? Is this some-
thing that could be measured? How? Apparently
there is an assumption that this is an undesirable
objective. Why?
> I think the topic does have an influence,
> particularly in this case. Is it not the
> expectation of the Course that the Course
> student will "put ACIM into practice",
> whatever that might mean.
It might be a good first step for you to
attempt to define what "putting ACIM into
practice" actually entails. You might also
want to determine if, indeed, agreement
exists among "course students" about this
process.
> I get this impression from the teacher's
> manual and there have been many comments
> here suggesting to me that some have this
> perception as well.
Impressions and suggestions do not, to me,
appear to offer much of a foundation on
which to build an objective evaluative
structure -- something you will need to do
if you expect to get meaningful results.
n.
Tom Fox
"Tom Fox" <Nos...@aso.moc> wrote in message
news:sa0dd1liq5bigpm01...@4ax.com...
>
> ~ Therefore, your attempt to categorically equate ethical behavior
> with doing the "wrong thing" is nonsensical.
Kate "Given that the evaluation of "nonsensical" is offered from a
Career Snake Oil Salesman and Soul Thief, I'll consider the source.
Carry on with your offerings of convenient wanking material for those
who prefer to wank rather than think. Maybe someone else feels like
playing silly semantical games with you, but I don't."
~ You like to present yourself as a factual and logical thinker when
in fact you are just emotional. I've seen your type before.
Richard A. Thayer
Tom Fox wrote:
> Linda "Probably there's an ethical proceudre or 2 somewhere
> in the confines of their university even then about some of their
> proceedures."
>
>
> ~ Try to follow the conversation, Linda.
I shall only butt in for a few minutes more,.
I have company coming for the weekend,
whew...
that saves all a lot of bother, right? LOL
Chuck was puzzled that Bill
> and Helen did not comply with their ethical obligation to assess the
> effectiveness of "A Course in Miracles" before publication. I pointed
> out that no such ethical obligation existed.
I thought he was speaking of their ethical
obligation "as scholars" to assess the
effectiveness of A Course in Miracles before
publication. . He's talking about scholarly
type "test" methods, right? By degreed
"scholars"... who aren't ignorant of standards
of publishing .. testing, or that icky word, proof.
He's not speaking of assesments like:
my friend Amy enjoyed reading this so
very so much --therefore this it is
likeable by many. Let's put it on the market.
>
> ~ I did not suggest that Helen and Bill did not have *any* ethical
> obligations. OK.
>
> ~ In fact, I'd say that Helen and Bill acted unethically by going
> along with and promoting the fiction that the published version was
> virtually the same as the original dictation.
OK.
>
> ~ They may have screwed Columbia University out of some paper and
> typewriter ribbons too. Big deal not.
To some, but not all.
Use of univ. property for private enterprise,
especially that which gets copyrighted is an
interesting legal situation. And...
Most universities do not encourage their
profs to run their private religious meanderings
on the premises!
So it is a pretty big deal to a select few folks,
none, to many more..
Mr Chuck is on a roll.
Seems like Mr Chuck is a very thorough
bean counter type-- stacking chips in the yes
pile and no pile very very carefully cautiously
and thoroughly. I respect that.
LINDA T
A
Me too. They were usually behind bars, and
got very excited if you pull out a banana.
Nancy
wanking as well.
n.
A
>
>
> Tom Fox wrote:
>
>> Linda "Probably there's an ethical proceudre or 2 somewhere
>> in the confines of their university even then about some of their
>> proceedures."
>>
>>
>> ~ Try to follow the conversation, Linda.
>
>
> I shall only butt in for a few minutes more,.
> I have company coming for the weekend,
>
> whew...
>
> that saves all a lot of bother, right? LOL
>
> Chuck was puzzled that Bill
>
>> and Helen did not comply with their ethical obligation to assess the
>> effectiveness of "A Course in Miracles" before publication. I pointed
>> out that no such ethical obligation existed.
>
> I thought he was speaking of their ethical obligation "as scholars" to
> assess the effectiveness of A Course in Miracles before publication. .
> He's talking about scholarly
> type "test" methods, right? By degreed
> "scholars"... who aren't ignorant of standards
> of publishing .. testing, or that icky word, proof.
I think Chuck was referring to an imaginary
ethical obligation to test what would happen
to people if they followed the curriculum,
before releasing it to the public at large.
Richard
>> it not the expectation of the Course that the Course student will "put
>> ACIM into practice", whatever that might mean? I get this impression
>> from the teacher's manual and there have been many comments here
>> suggesting to me that some have this perception as well.
>
>It's the expectation, just like when Jesus
>said "love thy neighbor as thyself" it was
>the expectation that they would or should,
>but 2,000 years of history tells us that a
>small percentage has put it into practice.
>
>"All are called, but few choose to listen".
The Course says that anger is not justified, not that we won't
continue to get angry.
Richard
Richard A. Thayer
Chuck wrote:
LINDA:
>
>>Seems to me, doesn't it to you, they
>>were caught in an energy of religion or
>>its associations.
>
CHUCK:
> It's not clear to me that they were caught in an energy of religion or
> its associations. I have strong doubts based on how things evolved,
> particularly with Helen. It's a nice story, and assuming that context,
> science doesn't help much with the answers. Why assume that context?
Because I'm familiar enough with the feelings of
being stirred up with some energy regarding
(religion) And I utilize my intuition about where
I personally think their experience fits.. Now,
you can pick yourself off the floor from
laughing I won't care. It's me and I operate
within those
premises ..
Anything with the word God in it seems to fall
within an association with religion , in my book.
Even the pledge of allegiance tack - in. The
legislators so wanted the right God to look only
at our flag.. ..
>
>
> If the presumption is that it was an intellectual process from the
> start, counter to the public story, then it seems appropriate to use
> the tools of logic and reason. I enjoy mysteries.
I love them. I read them constantly and eat up
crime dramas. CSI--swoon.
I have good instincts and enjoy seeing how close
my intuitive ideas ( I'm not always logic ) come
to figuring out the plots.
>
> Now, to make this into a dialog, what motivation was there for you to
> pick up ACIM
A foreign exchange student who was living with us
kept pushing it at me. He was so thoroughly
persistent I thought what the h.. I'll do it
just to please him, and went off
to a group meeting with him. I immediately
had everyone in the room startled , annoyed
or at least stirred up by my comments same as
here. It's my lot in life to be just plain
old ME! LOL
Another factor was timing. Acim was being waved
at me right when I was getting fatigued with my
New Age explorations;I seized it plain away as
having some Christian terminology which set off
my mentor.. like a time bomb LOL My New Age
teacher/friend
of the time, about croaked. So partly in
rebellion against him, to show him I could
stand on my own 2 feet, and because I wanted
to explore ANYTHING ELSE but what he was
dragging to me, I
noted immediately that acim was full of combat
possibilities to my own ideas, , and that
challenge to try to
solve its mysteries, exists to me, today.
and on what basis do you think it was an energy of
> religion or its associations?
I'm an energy sensor.
No science to it, either. I "see " energy
patterns and feel them as an identity.
Most others don't, and I've never met one
to join me in this.
So whatever you can call
"me", speaks/hears in a language that is not
totally explainable yet I've had plenty
of experiences which say --utilize this
Linda.
>
>
> I'm not denying any of this as general statements. As general
> statements, I think they can be applied to anything, including what I'm
> doing that you're questioning. If they are applied to anything as an
> explanation, there's not much sense that can be made about much of
> anything that can be shared.
What can be shared IS in the category of mystery.
This may not make much sense. But I'll try.
IMHO no 2 people share the same anything completely.
They utilize some of the energy of it to make
their own creation of the experience.
example:
If you tell me something, I immediately frame it
within my references. I cannot absorb YOU;
you cannot absorb ME.
Yet we can share energies to compound with our own.
If someone offers me dinner, I eat even that
within my frame of references though many could
be at the table.. YET, .
Yet we all SHARE.. something of it.
What exactly was "it" we shared?
>>You haven't been around anyone getting "the
>>call", the nudge, the experience! LOL.
>
>
> Bad assumption.
Didn't cost me anything, but got you to speak. LOL
Worth it.
So now I can assume you have been around the
experience of one or someone with the religious
Star Gaze opening ;-)
>
>
>>The eyes glaze the life gets tumbled over and
>>whoosh one lets out little parts of oneself---
>>to hell with explaning..
>
>
> Good choice, thank you.
>
I think that's what happened to Helen and Bill
and Ken and what's her name with the zerox machine
and many who got/get near the material.
>
>
LINDA:
>>keep on dissecting...
>>it is much fun to read.
>
> Chuck:
> Good, I'm having fun as well. But it's likely that the time I'll spend
> here and on the fossil images will be truncated over the next few
> weeks. The new Potter book is coming out this weekend, I have copy
> ordered, and I will have to comb it for new magic techniques. I'm
> specializing in the Defense Against the Dark Force, and am expected to
> have an analysis in this area ready for the August 19th Harry Potter
> Circle meeting at Big Belly Bob's.
With all the preteens! I can't buy you even being
near a pre-teen, much less Pottering about,
but I don't know you...
The thought of my projected image of you including
this,,,
challenging! ;-)
>
> Speaking of fossils, I'm partial to AMMONITES.
>
Now I have to go to the dictionary
The snail types.
Aha. Matches your circular thorough,
very deliberate and outward to inward
energy patterns.
LINDA T
Richard A. Thayer
A wrote:
>
> I think Chuck was referring to an imaginary
> ethical obligation to test what would happen
> to people if they followed the curriculum,
> before releasing it to the public at large.
>
Seems he's not the first to have wanted it
to be tested and will not be the
last. Even the 30 year test results so
far might yield, what? About 51 miracles, some
satisfied life changes, a few key phrases worked
into the reading world's vocabulary,
a few more business
enterprises, lots of tapes workshops
and how to rah rah your psyche with the
material
and some influences on the great
sea of thoughts in words.
He's not the first person to write such
ideas.. remember Jelly? He/she wanted FDA
approval of it~ required before total use.
LOL
Several of my skeptical friends,
just common folk,
have said,
didn't they wait to see if it worked some,
even if just on themselves before they
put it out? Nothing imaginary about that
question..
Yet I've read some zealots who think
that's the sign of TRUTH. Didn't need no
man made approvals because well , it's um,
T R U T H.
.
So, unlike MBEddy's book, where she experienced
FIRST what she wrote about, before making it
public, acim has a little hole in it.
If one is solely faith driven none of this may
even matter.
But the world is full of all types.
LINDA T
J
ROTFLMAO. Ethics? Oh, you mean like pushing Factnet as though you were
endorsed by Factnet as an authentic anti-cult activist? While violating
every standard of ethics set by Factnet as an ethical standard for
ant-cult advocacy?
A
> FIRST what she wrote about, before making it
> public, acim has a little hole in it.
>
> If one is solely faith driven none of this may even matter.
>
> But the world is full of all types.
Curiously enough, the fact that it was _not_
tested is a pretty good indication it wasn't
an experiment by the CIA. I doubt they would
spend all those years to produce it, only to
have it thrown against the wall to see what,
if anything, stuck. But then again, the CIA,
despite having "intelligence" as part of its
name, often times doesn't act intelligently,
so that might leave us back at square one. I
could ask Katie to channel some information.
maz
All she channels so far is "a*shole.". Do you expect more?
maz
Richard A. Thayer
A wrote:
> Richard A. Thayer wrote:
>
> Curiously enough, the fact that it was _not_
> tested is a pretty good indication it wasn't
> an experiment by the CIA.
I doubt they would
> spend all those years to produce it, only to
> have it thrown against the wall to see what,
> if anything, stuck.
But then again, the CIA,
> despite having "intelligence" as part of its
> name, often times doesn't act intelligently,
> so that might leave us back at square one.
Oh, it's kinda fun, running around the
idea of it, despite it being
a total horror to those who quake in fear that
the course can be smudged by the wrong finger
prints pressing on its spine..
. I
> could ask Katie to channel some information.
Oh brother. hand yourself a tongue depressor
don't you ever tire of it?
the continuing game of slap me back, Puleez,
slap me back, Katie
continues on and on ...
yawn that one to death someday, someone,
puhleez!
LINDA T
A
While you sit on the sidelines acting as
a walking, breathing footnote? Tiresome?
Reminds me of Carrie, continuous comment
on the comments of others. "But it's not
the same thing", the story goes, because
you think your crap is more interesting?
J
especially Katie and Bidhati have telegraphed your opinions so strongly
within this newsgroup that you have corrupted any potential data you
might collect. As well, these um... strongly stated opinions are not
the stuff that adds to one's academic credibility."
Academic credibility? Only on this newsgroup would such preposterous
claims by these two idiots even be considered. Credibility? If these
two neurotics desired credibility the first step would to post thier
full name and contact information, then stop acting like neurotic
haters and religious bigots. Until then what "Chuck," and Kate Dean
Vollmer engage in is commonly called a smear campaign.
If you don't understand the difference between academic research and a
smear campaign, Nancy --I suggest you either go back to school and
study public relations and ethics, and the proper methods of doing
academic research or alternatively, get a lobotomy which might at least
put out of your obvious pain to call a spade a spade.
yasha...@yahoo.com
>i am having a really hard >time believing it's a >NEGATIVE or HARMFUL
>thing for me or anyone >else.
hu huh!! ahem, cough cough...!!! well the Course says the opposite:
asserts that itself is HARMFUL if not well grasped:
"This is a course in mind training. All learning involves attention
and study at some level. Some of the later parts of the course rest
too heavily on these earlier sections not to require their careful
study. You will also need them for preparation. Without this, you may
become much too FEARFUL of what is to come to make constructive use of
it. However, as you study these earlier sections, you will begin to
see some of the implications that will be amplified later on"
(T-1.VII.4).
Chuck
> Chuck wrote:
>
> > We really don't have a way of knowing whether it's been studied
> > "properly" or "improperly" or an agreement on the meaning of those
> > words. The course defines a way to study, but there is disagreement
> > about that among the course proponents. Like any interpretation,
> > there's no way to measure "proper". And here you've opened up one of
> > the puzzles for me in that Helen and Bill were familiar with PAS and
> > how it could be used to assess results, but chose to avoid the trouble
> > of testing out their creation before releasing it, in spite of their
> > professional ethical responsibility to do so. As a point of reference,
> > many traditional course text books (school) are "trialed" before they
> > are released for general publication. That wasn't done either.
>
>
> Since the ultimate aim of the PAS
> (Personality Assessment System) is
> to provide insights into personality
> structure and function based on objective
> test data, and since Bill Thetford was a
> recognized authority on this relatively new
> (at the time) tool, it is probable that
> extensive testing was, indeed, done if the
> backer of "Project ACIM" was the CIA.
I don't see it this way, necessarily. It might have been intended as an
experiment to see what happened. It might have been released earlier
than intended. If it was used for CIA operational purposes only, it
might have been tested without anyone else knowing. The CIA was (is)
not in the habit of letting others know what it's up to or what it has
doen with work it receives.
There's a much stronger association of PAS to the CIA that your summary
doesn't go into. PAS was first deployed by the CIA for specific CIA
operational purposes. I don't remember if Gittinger developed it for
them specifically,and then tried to broaden it's application.
> I think that Mike Byson (Mikedownunder) has
> quite a bit of material on Bill's and Helen's
> academic work. You might try contacting him.
>
> Also, I'm wondering if you or Katie or Bidhati
> has made any effort to contact Ken and get
> his feedback on what was going on within that
> psych department at that time. He might
> surprise you with some candid info.
>
> I've also found Jerry Jampolsky and the
> Foundation for Attitudinal Healing to be
> extremely open to questions.
Good points, thanks. I'm of the opinion that whatever story gets
developed, it's got to have a bit more coherency than what has been
batted back and forth here.
> > I have acknowledged that this news
> > group does not constitute a sufficient
> > sample size for me to draw any valid
> > statistical conclusions.
>
>
> It's not only the sample size that's the
> problem. All of you, but especially Katie
> and Bidhati have telegraphed your opinions
> so strongly within this newsgroup that you
> have corrupted any potential data you might
> collect. As well, these um... strongly
> stated opinions are not the stuff that
> adds to one's academic credibility.
If there were no other bases of interactions available, I think this is
something to consider. But going back into the way back archives,
there's not much impact I can see that our presence here has caused to
skew any results. But this is down the road, so when I get there.
>
>
> > > As for "building a box around oneself", we
> > > see this in many newsgroups on the web. It
> > > has much less to do with the topic than it
> > > has to do with the poster's participating.
>
>
> Exactly what process does this term "building
> a box around oneself" refer to? Is this some-
> thing that could be measured? How? Apparently
> there is an assumption that this is an undesirable
> objective. Why?
I use this metaphor to cover a broad range of traps we set for
ourselves. I think a short form illustration would be
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin
In a "religious" sense, the building and worshiping of "idols" is
another form.
>
> > I think the topic does have an influence,
> > particularly in this case. Is it not the
> > expectation of the Course that the Course
> > student will "put ACIM into practice",
> > whatever that might mean.
>
>
> It might be a good first step for you to
> attempt to define what "putting ACIM into
> practice" actually entails. You might also
> want to determine if, indeed, agreement
> exists among "course students" about this
> process.
This would serve me no purpose. I am reflecting the words of others
when I use the term.
>
> > I get this impression from the teacher's
> > manual and there have been many comments
> > here suggesting to me that some have this
> > perception as well.
>
>
> Impressions and suggestions do not, to me,
> appear to offer much of a foundation on
> which to build an objective evaluative
> structure -- something you will need to do
> if you expect to get meaningful results.
This is work in progress and the forum is a discussion group. If you
don't have the same impressions based on your experience here and your
reading of the teacher's manual, OK. So let me turn this around and
ask, based on your years using ACIM, is it your understanding that ACIM
asks you to "live ACIM" or "put ACIM into practice" or something along
those lines? If so, where in ACIM did you find this thought? If not, of
what value is ACIM to you in your daily life?
>
> n.
Chuck
> Chuck wrote:
>
> LINDA:
> >
> >>Seems to me, doesn't it to you, they
> >>were caught in an energy of religion or
> >>its associations.
> >
> CHUCK:
> > It's not clear to me that they were caught in an energy of religion or
> > its associations. I have strong doubts based on how things evolved,
> > particularly with Helen. It's a nice story, and assuming that context,
> > science doesn't help much with the answers. Why assume that context?
Linda:
> Because I'm familiar enough with the feelings of
> being stirred up with some energy regarding
> (religion) And I utilize my intuition about where
> I personally think their experience fits.. Now,
> you can pick yourself off the floor from
> laughing I won't care. It's me and I operate
> within those
> premises ..
Chuck:
I didn't laugh until you suggested it. I'm not sure what association
you have within your mind for the word "intuition". What I am aware of
is the ability to associate and integrate information information
without conscious mental direction (i.e. using some mentally directed
process such as logic or reasoning). This ability is what I would
associate with the word.
Linda:
> Anything with the word God in it seems to fall
> within an association with religion , in my book.
> Even the pledge of allegiance tack - in. The
> legislators so wanted the right God to look only
> at our flag.. ..
Chuck:
OK, I don't find that association helpful for me since it is so easy to
misuse.
> > If the presumption is that it was an intellectual process from the
> > start, counter to the public story, then it seems appropriate to use
> > the tools of logic and reason. I enjoy mysteries.
Linda:
> I love them. I read them constantly and eat up
> crime dramas. CSI--swoon.
> I have good instincts and enjoy seeing how close
> my intuitive ideas ( I'm not always logic ) come
> to figuring out the plots.
Chuck:
You seem to be separating logic from intuition. For me, "logic" is just
an aspect of the same intrinsic processing, where the "value" of
"logic" is found in attempting to "share" what is hidden in a manner
that we as humans have formalized to facilitate the sharing. We have
formalized many other ways of sharing as well, and "language" seems to
be the most widely used formalization.
> > Now, to make this into a dialog, what motivation was there for you to
> > pick up ACIM
Linda:
> A foreign exchange student who was living with us
> kept pushing it at me. He was so thoroughly
> persistent I thought what the h.. I'll do it
> just to please him, and went off
> to a group meeting with him. I immediately
> had everyone in the room startled , annoyed
> or at least stirred up by my comments same as
> here. It's my lot in life to be just plain
> old ME! LOL
>
> Another factor was timing. Acim was being waved
> at me right when I was getting fatigued with my
> New Age explorations;I seized it plain away as
> having some Christian terminology which set off
> my mentor.. like a time bomb LOL My New Age
> teacher/friend
> of the time, about croaked. So partly in
> rebellion against him, to show him I could
> stand on my own 2 feet, and because I wanted
> to explore ANYTHING ELSE but what he was
> dragging to me, I
> noted immediately that acim was full of combat
> possibilities to my own ideas, , and that
> challenge to try to
> solve its mysteries, exists to me, today.
Chuck:
Thanks for the explanation.
> and on what basis do you think it was an energy of
> > religion or its associations?
Linda:
> I'm an energy sensor.
> No science to it, either. I "see " energy
> patterns and feel them as an identity.
> Most others don't, and I've never met one
> to join me in this.
Chuck:
I'm not sure of your meaning, but I am familiar with many
possibilities. From what I've seen of your posts, it appears to me that
you pick up on some overall flow across various posts, but what remains
hidden is which posts you're picking up on.
Linda:
> So whatever you can call
> "me", speaks/hears in a language that is not
> totally explainable yet I've had plenty
> of experiences which say --utilize this
> Linda.
>
> >
Chuck:
> > I'm not denying any of this as general statements. As general
> > statements, I think they can be applied to anything, including what I'm
> > doing that you're questioning. If they are applied to anything as an
> > explanation, there's not much sense that can be made about much of
> > anything that can be shared.
Linda:
> What can be shared IS in the category of mystery.
> This may not make much sense. But I'll try.
> IMHO no 2 people share the same anything completely.
> They utilize some of the energy of it to make
> their own creation of the experience.
> example:
> If you tell me something, I immediately frame it
> within my references. I cannot absorb YOU;
> you cannot absorb ME.
> Yet we can share energies to compound with our own.
> If someone offers me dinner, I eat even that
> within my frame of references though many could
> be at the table.. YET, .
> Yet we all SHARE.. something of it.
> What exactly was "it" we shared?
Chuck:
What was shared was what was shared, an external happening in space
time. If you have no desire to make anything out of it, then that's as
far as it will go. I find it useful at times to use the external
happening and make something out of it that allows me to share a
glimpse of "me".
Linda:
> >>You haven't been around anyone getting "the
> >>call", the nudge, the experience! LOL.
> >
Chuck:
> > Bad assumption.
Linda:
> Didn't cost me anything, but got you to speak. LOL
> Worth it.
>
> So now I can assume you have been around the
> experience of one or someone with the religious
> Star Gaze opening ;-)
Chuck:
I wouldn't define it as "religious" because of the connotations I
associate with the word. I have been around some who have become aware
of the real sense of being and stepped into that sense. Having had that
priviledge is a great gift.
Linda:
> >
> >>The eyes glaze the life gets tumbled over and
> >>whoosh one lets out little parts of oneself---
> >>to hell with explaning..
> >
Chuck:
> > Good choice, thank you.
Linda:
> I think that's what happened to Helen and Bill
> and Ken and what's her name with the zerox machine
> and many who got/get near the material.
Chuck:
OK, the party line supports this. But I am aware of cases where the
original material is of dubious intent and origin that have induced
similar responses. I consider a lot of the original writings associated
with Theosophy are of such a characterization.
> >
> >
> LINDA:
>
> >>keep on dissecting...
> >>it is much fun to read.
> >
> > Chuck:
>
> > Good, I'm having fun as well. But it's likely that the time I'll spend
> > here and on the fossil images will be truncated over the next few
> > weeks. The new Potter book is coming out this weekend, I have copy
> > ordered, and I will have to comb it for new magic techniques. I'm
> > specializing in the Defense Against the Dark Force, and am expected to
> > have an analysis in this area ready for the August 19th Harry Potter
> > Circle meeting at Big Belly Bob's.
Linda:
> With all the preteens! I can't buy you even being
> near a pre-teen, much less Pottering about,
> but I don't know you...
> The thought of my projected image of you including
> this,,,
> challenging! ;-)
Chuck:
LOL - I admire the creativity of the writer dealing with the "target
audience" very interesting along with her use of the symbol set she's
created - or should I say, my projections of the above? It's a fun
diversion.
> >
> > Speaking of fossils, I'm partial to AMMONITES.
> >
> Now I have to go to the dictionary
> The snail types.
> Aha. Matches your circular thorough,
> very deliberate and outward to inward
> energy patterns.
The pattern goes both ways.
>
> LINDA T
Richard A. Thayer
Chuck wrote:
>
> The pattern goes both ways.
>
>
YES! In fact when I awoke this morning
the same thought came to me.
I found myself then air-
drawing a "snail"
from the inside to the outside
which is the usual way I form them on
paper,
and asking did I pick that up while seeing
your energy pattern. =
The answer is no I didn't pick it up
in relation to my sensing of you thru
this conversation..
No criticism, just how I saw what patterns
you were presenting (in my curious language)
LINDA T
Richard A. Thayer
A wrote:
>>
>>> could ask Katie to channel some information.
>>
>>
LINDA:
>> Oh brother. hand yourself a tongue depressor
>> don't you ever tire of it?
>>
>> the continuing game of slap me back, Puleez,
>> slap me back, Katie
>> continues on and on ...
>>
>> yawn that one to death someday, someone,
>>
>> puhleez!
>
>
ALAN:
> While you sit on the sidelines acting as
> a walking, breathing footnote? Tiresome?
You're tired of me... Well, the best
I can come up with is
do take a nap. Carry your sleeping bag
over to the quiet place and snooze it off.
>
> Reminds me of Carrie, continuous comment
> on the comments of others.
Your imagination seems to be working.
"But it's not
> the same thing", the story goes, because
> you think your crap is more interesting?
ooh eee! He's on a roll!
Let's see in this week or 2
I have riled up
Maz, John and Alan. The 3 founding fathers
of the holy retreat for safer prose
regarding the course in miracles..
It was to be the place to bloom and then spread
outward to the rest of the world,
the more valued concepts.
You guys have it made.
Every tool known to mankind to make your
lives perfect...
What else can I say! :=)
LINDA T
Jl2...@netzero.com
ROTFLMAO. If you and Katie are concerned with "research," and
discussion, why is that Katie has thousands of archieved posts on this
group, most of which are obscene personal attacks and totally
consistent with the same type of hate campaign she and Cosmic Fool
waged against the Lazaris organization? Your notion of reseach and
discussion is nothing more than an excuse used by a self-proclaimed
anti-cult group to run a smear campaign and hate campaign, ACIM. Isn't
that right "Chuck"/Ted? If its a discussion group, why is that you
advoid disussing your complete lack of credentials and credibiltiy to
run any type of research in a standard ethical manner?
"Chuck," is a Cosmic Fool associate of our dear "Noggin," (Katie Dean
Vollmer) militant atheist and disinformation specialist who takes great
issue with using public venues to discuss God.
Her website CosmicFool.com has made it to FactNET's designated
"Cult-Watch Movements as Cults" Discussion Board, located at this url:
http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/8798.html
Such disruptive, militant atheistic, disinformation tactics have
necesitated many former posters of TRCM to create a moderated newgroup
for Course discussion. If you have comments that you'd like to make
about Katie's and "Chuck's" cult hate tactics here, in her "Anti-Cult"
capacity, make your complaints to Factnet at the above link.
A
That you give yourself way too much credit.
Nancy
> Nancy wrote:
> > Since the ultimate aim of the PAS
> > (Personality Assessment System) is
> > to provide insights into personality
> > structure and function based on objective
> > test data, and since Bill Thetford was a
> > recognized authority on this relatively new
> > (at the time) tool, it is probable that
> > extensive testing was, indeed, done if the
> > backer of "Project ACIM" was the CIA.
>
> I don't see it this way, necessarily.
> It might have been intended as an
> experiment to see what happened. It
> might have been released earlier
> than intended. If it was used for
> CIA operational purposes only, it
> might have been tested without
> anyone else knowing. The CIA was (is)
> not in the habit of letting others
> know what it's up to or what it has
> doen with work it receives.
I'm of the opinion that EVERYTHING that
MKULTRA touched should see the light of
day, which was why I'm not against the
research project per se. Some terrible
things were done through that (and other
similar projects) all in the name of
"national security." But I think that
the idea that the course itself arose
from MKULTRA is a stretch, to say the
least. :) This may be a good time
to go into some of the reasons.
1. It's too long and took too much
time to prepare.
2. As it was "in process" it was shown
informally to too many people.
3. The workbook (the only portion of
the course that would lend itself to
documenting any "results") came AFTER
the text. If it were part of an experi-
mental, government-funded, project, it
would have come FIRST.
4. There was no control on distribu-
tion.
5. Most of the projects of that type
either involved drugs (especially LSD)
or focused on some sort of operant
conditioning. The "method" of the course,
as set out in the workbook, actually
allows students to free themselves from
internal and external conditioned responses
(ego) by the simple method of observing
the the ego's promptings, deciding if they
are valid and deciding whether or not to
respond.
6. With regard to Point 5, the success
or lack of success of students of the
workbook in meeting the objectives could
have been boiled down to isolated behaviors
and evaluated. The fact that no efforts
in that direction appear to have been made
leads me to believe that Project ACIM was,
in no way "official."
> There's a much stronger association
> of PAS to the CIA that your summary
> doesn't go into. PAS was first de-
> ployed by the CIA for specific CIA
> operational purposes. I don't remem-
> ber if Gittinger developed it for
> them specifically,and then tried
> to broaden it's application.
The fact is, though, that it probably
COULD have been applied and was not.
Aren't there any objectives in the
literature?
> Good points, thanks. I'm of the
> opinion that whatever story gets
> developed, it's got to have a
> bit more coherency than what
> has been batted back and forth
> here.
One of the problems to my mind is that
some are approaching a research project
as if they were developing a story.
> > > I have acknowledged that this news
> > > group does not constitute a sufficient
> > > sample size for me to draw any valid
> > > statistical conclusions.
> If there were no other bases of inter-
> actions available, I think this is
> something to consider. But going back
> into the way back archives, there's not
> much impact I can see that our presence
> here has caused to skew any results. But
> this is down the road, so when I get there.
If you mean that trcm was a contentious venue
before you came and will probably be a
contentious venue after you leave, I agree.
What I meant was, though, that, in this venue,
2/3 of your researchers have identified themselves
as anything but objective, thus undermining
the overall credibility of any published results.
> > Exactly what process does this term "building
> > a box around oneself" refer to? Is this some-
> > thing that could be measured? How? Apparently
> > there is an assumption that this is an undesirable
> > objective. Why?
> I use this metaphor to cover a broad
> range of traps we set for ourselves.
> I think a short form illustration would be
>
> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
> - Benjamin Franklin
This is interesting but it doesn't do much for
me in terms of providing an exact definition.
> In a "religious" sense, the building and
> worshiping of "idols" is another form.
The course uses this term to describe the
practice of defining things or processes or
people as being essential in getting
something that we want. It has nothing
to do with religion and I'm not sure how it
fits with the "building boxes" references.
> > It might be a good first step for you to
> > attempt to define what "putting ACIM into
> > practice" actually entails. You might also
> > want to determine if, indeed, agreement
> > exists among "course students" about this
> > process.
>
> This would serve me no purpose. I am
> reflecting the words of others
> when I use the term.
Okay.
> > Impressions and suggestions do not, to me,
> > appear to offer much of a foundation on
> > which to build an objective evaluative
> > structure -- something you will need to do
> > if you expect to get meaningful results.
>
> This is work in progress and the
> forum is a discussion group. If you
> don't have the same impressions based
> on your experience here and your
> reading of the teacher's manual,
> OK.
> So let me turn this around and
> ask, based on your years using ACIM,
> is it your understanding that ACIM
> asks you to "live ACIM" or "put
> ACIM into practice" or something along
> those lines?
This is actually a point that gets
argued a lot among ACIM students in
that, to some, implying suggested
behavioral guidelines suggests
judgment which, in itself, is a
no-no.
My OPINION on this is that the text
is explicit in defining a few practices --
i.e. asking for guidance, abstaining
from judging, forgiving -- that would
be beneficial in meeting the objectives
of the course, but it does not lay
them out as commandments.
> If so, where in ACIM did you find
> this thought?
These sorts of guidelines are mentioned
throughout the book as I am sure you are
aware.
> If not, of what value is ACIM to you
> in your daily life?
I'm curious as to how the subjective values
I hold around the course are relevant to
your "investigations." Nevertheless, I'm
happy to share them. ACIM is of great value
to me in my daily life because:
1. It provides a method whereby I can
drop most grievances quickly and let them be
in the past. This is of value to me because
I prefer the way I feel without grievances
to the way I feel when I'm holding grievances
against people/places/things.
2. It provides a methodology whereby I can
monitor my immediate internal reactions to
external events and choose to RESPOND (or
not) rather than react.
3. It provides me with a view of my fellow
humans (as equal children of God) that I
very much value.
There are other reasons, but these are some.
Nancy
Nancy
J wrote:
> If you don't understand the difference between academic research and a
> smear campaign, Nancy --I suggest you either go back to school and
> study public relations and ethics, and the proper methods of doing
> academic research or alternatively, get a lobotomy which might at least
> put out of your obvious pain to call a spade a spade.
LOL!
If you're not careful, John, you're going
to erode my image of Louisiana men as
made in the mold of Dave Robichaux.
:)
n.
Noggin
"Nancy" <nancyl...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:1121449363.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>ACIM is of great value
> to me in my daily life because:
>
> 1. It provides a method whereby I can
> drop most grievances quickly and let them be
> in the past. This is of value to me because
> I prefer the way I feel without grievances
> to the way I feel when I'm holding grievances
> against people/places/things.
Ok, glaring, contemptuous dishonesty and self-delusion. So far, so good.
>
> 2. It provides a methodology whereby I can
> monitor my immediate internal reactions to
> external events and choose to RESPOND (or
> not) rather than react.
Better than your God given brain combined with a little emotional maturity can? It doesn't seem
so, Nancy. You don't "respond", you strategize, lie, manipulate, indoctrinate, and play head
games with people. I can't think of one time that you ever responded to anything here, be it
something you appreciate or don't appreciate that was a reasonable, honest, sincere, trustworthy
response that couldn't be completely disproved by something you said previously, often 5 minutes
previously. I wonder sometimes if you have ever had a simple clean response to anything that you
didn't feel the need to filter through your Strategizing Machine. I wonder if you even know
what a simple, clean, honest, trustworthy response is.
>
> 3. It provides me with a view of my fellow
> humans (as equal children of God) that I
> very much value.
Already disputed as being airy fairy self-satisfied bollocks.
>
> There are other reasons, but these are some.
Now how about some that aren't bullshit?
Noggin
> humans (as equal children of God) that I
> very much value.
Right, you very much value your own internal gasses too. You think your happy thoughts about
yourself are Jesus Christ sending you special messages because you're special, so you feel the
urge to share those messages, despite the fact that you claim to believe that everyone else gets
them too, it's just that you're the only one who listens. What that has to do with you seeing
yourself as an "equal" child of God is beyond me. More accurately, you're a liar.
The point though is what does all that self-perceived value have to do with anyone else getting
any value out of you? Self centeredness and self-aggrandizment don't have any actual value.
starch...@yahoo.com
to erode my image of Louisiana men as
made in the mold of Dave Robichaux.
They don't seem as respectful of women as I once thought.
Southern Gentlemen (I know, Ashley Wilkes was in Georgia)
But then I never thought of them in the same way since the "Vampire"
books (Anne Rice)
(LOL)
~ Carrie
Nancy
Oh yes. I read Interview with a Vampire
years ago. I remember it as a pretty
good book.
n.
A
> "Nancy" <nancyl...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:1121449363.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>3. It provides me with a view of my fellow
>>humans (as equal children of God) that I
>>very much value.
>
> Right, you very much value your own internal gasses too.
Speaking of gasses, Dreary, tell us
again how you channeled information
stating that "channeled information
will never be given for the benefit
of mankind", then posted it on your
website for the benefit of mankind:
"No loving, helpful, or wise entity
would ever choose a particular individual
through whom to transmit information which
is helpful or necessary to humankind."
- Katie Dean (aka Guess Who, aka Noggin
channeling who knows who)
jason
> Hi Jason,
(snip)
Right now, I don't have any axe to grind
> with you, and I suddenly respect your opinions, even those I don't agree with, even though I may
> continue to question your process of arriving at them, as all thinkers in quest of the truth must
> do.
sure thing, and i've quit grinding my axe here too.
honestly, i've just been trying to understand where you (and others)
are coming from and quit yelling at people. although i'm still inclined
to shout at carrie now and again (primarily because there's nothing to
listen to there anyway...lol)
>
> Beyond that point, the discussion becomes academic, and the question is, do you want or need to
> have it? We've reached a point of fundamental mutual respect for our rights and abilities to
> think clearly and approach conflict with a sense of purpose.
>
> So, my question to you is, do you want to continue the discussion, and if so, for what purpose?
i don't have a BIG desire to continue.
i honestly, HONESTLY, am trying to see where you and chuck and bidhati
are coming from
but as i already posted in the beginning of this thread i just can't
seem to agree with a couple of the main observations you have about
ACIM (the CIA /cult connection, and the harmful/negative aspect).
so be it.
but i do want to stay open minded...and may still post a comment or
observation on something if i see it.
if i see something that's convincing to me, i'll post about that too.
while i find it a little bit suspicious that Thetford and MKULTRA and
the CIA were floating around at that time, i still haven't seen
anything that really convinces me that ACIM wasn't "spiritually"
inspired.
so that's where i am at.
> Because right now, your personal beliefs have led you to a place that I don't have any issue
> with. Right now, in this moment anyway. It's MY issue to pursue information about ACIM and
> other belief systems of questionable authority.
and you are perfectly entitled to do this, and this doesn't bother me
as much as it used to.
> Is it yours? That's the question.
actually, no. but if i see something that i wanna comment on i reserve
the right to do so.
also if i see something that's somewhat convincing, i'll freely admit
that too.
> Because at this point, I feel no big urge to be sparring with you
about it, but I'm more than happy to
> continue to discuss the process by which I arrived at my conclusions on the matter, if you
> continue to interact in this manner. I have no need to convince you that ACIM came from a CIA
> think tank, it's your decision whether or not to invest in thinking along those lines.
i will certainly be glad to entertain and try, as i have done, to see
the "other side" of things,
in a non-yelling manner, for whatever comes down the road.
>
> The information that led three of us here, and others elsewhere to SIMILAR conclusions is all
> over this newgroup, and all over the internet. I didn't arrive at it because someone out debated
> me. It arrived to me, really, because it all started to unfold as a result of unrelated
> interests, and because so much of it arrived, it became an interest unto itself for me. I think
> I can safely speak for both Chuck and Bidhati in saying that they weren't ever out looking for it
> either, but that they both found certain pieces of information compelling enough to encourage
> them to pursue the project of trying to piece the puzzle together.
and that's fine. i take your word to be true on this.
>
> As with all research, there comes a point where those engaged in it will start to compare notes
> and test each other's theories. From that process, if done with objectivity and a committment to
> the same standards of testing, will usually come a working theory that has enough substance to it
> that it's worth publishing as an informational tool for further research. That's somewhere about
> where Chuck and I are on this issue. It does not say that we have proved our theory, only that
> we've tossed around enough information to establish that we have a valid enough working theory
> to warrant more input and further research.
i have doubts about ANYONE's ability to come to anything more than
suspicion and speculation on some of these matters, BUT, like I
promised--i will keep an open mind and put in a sincere effort, as the
need arises, to see the "other side".
>
> None of this has anything to do with me, Chuck, and Bidhati being bitter ex-culties, having axes
> to grind, being mentally unstable, hateful, fearful, and only really in need of love and
> understanding from strangers we don't much like over the internet, one person posing as three
> people, or any of us being anyone but who we claim to be. This is a topic of interest to all of
> us for varying and more substantial reasons. Chuck does not regard himself as an ex-cultie.
> Other than the traditional religious "cults", I don't know that he's ever been in a good working
> cult, if he his, he hasn't identified it or shared the details with me. Bidhati and I are both
> confessed ex-culties, but we also had our own unique experiences and reasons for wanting out from
> under the belief systems that we now know did not serve us, and by all indication don't serve
> anyone. Those are the circumstances of our reasons for pursuing information that would lead to
> valid conclusions about where ACIM came from and what its purpose and function is..
again, i take you at your honest word on this.
i guess the ONLY thing i would ask of you (and others) in your pursuit
of these matters is to be honest. with yourselves and with others.
other than that, i will start taking you on your honest word(s) on
these issues....even if i end up disagreeing. fair enough?
None of the
> information has an emotional charge for us beyond the sense of satisfaction anyone gets from
> researching any topic. I, me, myself, personally, continue to have anger about the many
> cultified manipulations, indoctrinations, and erosions of self-evident freedoms that arise from
> ACIM groups and similar belief systems, but that's me. (just in case you missed it!) I don't
> apologize for, or seek to deny or subvert my anger, because it's a healthy anger, and it fuels a
> lot of productive thinking and activity for me, as it's intended to do by whatever brilliance
> created me. I can't speak for Chuck, Bidhati, or anyone else on that issue, unless they clearly
> state it.
>
> So, after all that bloviating, what I'm asking you is if you're sure you want to discuss this
> with me. I'm speaking for myself, and asking what I would like to know before committing to
> having further direct discussions with you on the topic. I'd like to know if there's a purpose
> to it that serves both of our needs and desires, that's all.
i guess the answer is no. i'm finished with it, for now. but reserve
the right to comment in the future.
and thank you, it was nice having a civil discussion with you about
these matters...and while it wasn't easy for me, i think it was a good
thing for me to try and see these things from a totally different
perspective than i'm used to.
> Did you have a fun birthday?
no. but that's ok. i got a couple of guitar stands/mic stands.
a buddy and me are working on a demo cd.
i'll get ya some mp3 copies or something when we finish up.
it's fun stuff.
jason
To illustrate, we humans can build boxes around ourselves
> based on almost anything and if ACIM is used to "build a box" around
> oneself, I would consider that a negative or harmful result.
you are failing to consider that ACIM does more than just build boxes
around people.
there is a possibility that it might actually be good for some.
> openly, I doubt a closed case with a smoking gun would do anything for
> you either.
try not to BOX me in too much...if i see something convincing or more
than just suspicion and conjecture i will consider it deeply.
and yes, i do find it somewhat intriguing and suspicious that there
were CIA/MkUltra/Thetford/Gittinger things going on around at the time
ACIM was 'scribed'
jason
Like any interpretation,
> there's no way to measure "proper".
sure there is, ACIM is full of it's own built in tests.
one of them says if you do not feel a deep abiding inner peace you
still have work to do.
maz
> Maz,
Linda, you have helped me, thanks for that.
By the way to rile myself up is my own job,
not yours. And I am much better at it than you! LOL
Anyway, glad you're back. Maybe I'll dive into the
archives for the response I intended to send you.
Be well, maz.
jfd...@yahoo.com
safer prose
regarding the course in miracles."
Too funny! One of the outstanding characteristics of a "spiritual
sophisticate," is the conceite nothing much is sacred or needs to be
sacred, and if anyone considers something worthy of being sacred or
holy ---well that's the time to come in and blow up the place.
Passion-less intellect is substituted for lack of passion. Sort of like
old farts who keep assuring themselves life is much better now that
raging hormones no longer course through their veins and distort an
otherwise comfortable life. Forgetting, that passion is the stuff of
life itself.
A Course in Miracles, and this newsgroup in particular has become the
domaine of old farts, who for the most part lack the passion to get out
their chair or from in front of their computer --much less have passion
for God and The Numinious. In all my years, in the Course Community I
could count on one hand all the Course students who thought the Course
was worth passionite study and whose study and contemplation should be
considered holy. Though I've met of plenty of course students who
attack any notion of holiness, sacredness and any display of reglious
passion as though this was the devil, itself.
The de-sacredization of the holy, the numinious is one of the purposes
of this newsgroup, it is the reason Wapnick can postulate another Jesus
and assume to re-write A Course in Miracles, it is also the reason
Linda T. sees no reason to believe anything in this universe is worth
bending her knees in humbliness to something greater. Lets say
pathological pride is not what the Course teaches and not an attitude
for much of anything but living out the remainder of a comfortable
life. Comfort, perhaps but not God is the reward, for mocking the
sacred.
starchil...@hotmail.com
Every tool known to mankind to make your
lives perfect...
What else can I say! :=)
------------------------------------
Maybe they have different ideas of what perfect is?
~ Carrie
maz
What are the characteristics of sacred and holy conduct
in studying/learning, applying the Course? Thanks, oneLove, maz
starchil...@hotmail.com
smear campaign, Nancy --I suggest you either go back to school and
study public relations and ethics, and the proper methods of doing
academic research or alternatively, get a lobotomy which might at least
put out of your obvious pain to call a spade a spade
-------------------
How does this apply to what ACIM says, such as "I give everything all
and any meaning it has for me"?
....First I look inside and decide something, then look out and see
proof of my decision.
And "seek not to change the world but change your mind about it".
Offered on a course discussion board, for possible course
discussion.
Can you accept and answer it that way?
Without calling me names, and getting sidetracked on what you have
decided I am, and how I'm part of Katie's gang, and internet trash, and
what I'm doing to ruin this course ng?
Just say how you relate what you wrote to what ACIM teaches?
~ Carrie
A
[snip]
> Without calling me names, and getting sidetracked on what you have
> decided I am, and how I'm part of Katie's gang, and internet trash, and
> what I'm doing to ruin this course ng?
>
> Just say how you relate what you wrote to what ACIM teaches?
I think what frustrates John about you, Carrie,
is that you go out of your way to defend Katie,
when she's obviously here only to ridicule you,
and anybody else who follows ACIM. That itself,
is not the problem. You attack back in your own
passive aggressive manner if it's anybody else,
but step in to take the bullet, if you perceive
that somebody is responding to Katie in the way
that she has communicated. It's smacks of utter
hypocrisy, because it shows two things: 1) ACIM
is something which you apply as a standard only
when it's convenient for you. 2) You don't mind
posters here being attacked if it's Katie doing
the name calling yet bristle if anybody replies
to her in kind. Curious, when it's Katie or you
doing it you were just being "open and honest",
but if it's anybody else, they're not acting in
accordance to ACIM teachings. You apply ACIM as
both a dagger and a shield, then wonder why you
get treated the way you do by the posters here?
starchil...@hotmail.com
-------------------------------
But, I'm not supposed to notice that John continually lumps me in
with Katie (even in regard to his rants about her and factnet) and
refers to me as "Carrie and her gang" (etc)?
I don't feel I defend Katie. I believe she, like everyone has a
right to say what she wants here, on an unmoderated board. People can
skip it, fight over it, start their own board, leave, whatever- make
their own choices. They can even ignore her and not focus attenion on
her being wrong and "getting" her in some way.
LIke John brought her husband Ted into this, here, and as far as I
know, Ted doesn't write here. He didn't write much of anything on
Cosmic Fool, either. He doesn't go around on boards calling people
names and lumping them into groups (and cults).
But, John is doing the same thing (in a different way, and of
course JUSTIFIED) as he sees Katie (and others) as doing.
Over and over and over.
In my case, maybe he feels I deserve it, and others agree, but does
that make it anymore right than Katie doing it, to (say) Nancy?
Is one person's right anymore justified than another's?
John can say what he wants to me and call me "internet trash" but
I can't ask him a question (meant in all sincerity) about how he
relates something to ACIM?
There's also the idea of another day- another moment and we can
start again. Is something that is true one minute still try next week
or next year? Only if the one seeing it like that still is.
What happened to the idea of letting go of grievances, and seeing
someone anew, and starting over? Finding something positive to look at
and join in?
This (latest) mainly started when I said I can see why Katie has
the ideas she does about ACIM, going by how she has been treated by
people who cleaim to be ACIM students.
Take that apart a bit. Katie is NOT the ACIM student. She wouldn't
be expected to be any certain way or see people differently. But, the
ACIM students, who have read and heard and claim to believe for years
in truths like "projection-perception" and not to try and change
someone/something out there, but change MY MIND about it, and of course
to FORGIVE (and you will see this differently) might be expected to be-
somewhat examples of this?
I know, I know.... this can only apply to me, and nothing stops me
from attempting to put it into my own life. Maybe it can't be put into
words. Because when I found a way to do it here (seeing Katie's side of
it and how she might be feeling about ACIM, based on how she's been and
still is treated by ACIM students?) this seems to have made people see
me as defending her and taking her side. BEING NICE TO HER!
Oh no! What would happen if people are nice to those who are
supposed to be enemies here?
I don't know if you feel like I'm being nice to you, or not (your
personal perception, and I'm not going to invalidate this) but I
remember when you were the enemy. I'd read posts and reposts (mainly by
John) calling you "Alan Sniper" and showing how horrible you are. At
the time I didn't know if I should maybe be afraid of you, like you're
some kind of psychopathic cyber-nut or something.
I didn't tie in with this, and don't feel that way about you now.
I've had this happene with many others, including Amminadab(Ryan) who
used to follow me around on boards calling me names and saying "you
lie". I changed my mind and saw it differently, maybe saw the
"humanity" or oneness or something, aside from the words.
Mike (Ryder) was another one, but that was another board- mainly. We
got into writing about art and posting pictures, on mr bill's egroup he
started (supposedly unmoderated an open to all). And one day it was
gone. Closed. Or maybe I was unsubbed from it for some reason I wasn't
aware of or told. He finally said (on here) he had closed it to make
changes and would restart it again, but if he did, he didn't let me
know.
Would have been nice, if he did it to exclude me, or just unsubbed
me (I had no way of knowing if the actual group closed, there were no
archives, it was email only) he would have told me why.
Like you do, and I get a chance to learn from it. Not that one
person's truth about me is totally correct truth, but something to look
at and consider.
I do appreciate the honest feedback. And here on an unmoderated
board, I get to decide what, if anything I do with it. At some point,
with some just leaving them alone might be the best bet.
In the post where I asked John the questions about how he applies
it to ACIM it was a serious question. A chance to have a real ACIM
discussion about it, which is what he continually says he wants and
can't have here.
Today is another day, things can be different.
>>>>Curious, when it's Katie or you
doing it you were just being "open and honest",
but if it's anybody else, they're not acting in
accordance to ACIM teachings.
Did I say this? I thought I asked John how he applied it to ACIM
teachings.
Doesn't have to be taken as an accusation, requiring defense and
counter attack. It can be seen as what it is, just a question.
~ Carrie
Noggin
"jason" <clark_ke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121493599.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Noggin wrote:
>
>> Hi Jason,
>
> (snip)
>
> Right now, I don't have any axe to grind
>> with you, and I suddenly respect your opinions, even those I don't agree with, even though I
>> may
>> continue to question your process of arriving at them, as all thinkers in quest of the truth
>> must
>> do.
>
> sure thing, and i've quit grinding my axe here too.
> honestly, i've just been trying to understand where you (and others)
> are coming from and quit yelling at people. although i'm still inclined
> to shout at carrie now and again (primarily because there's nothing to
> listen to there anyway...lol)
Is it all that hard? We the "unenlightened" are simply not willing to believe everything we
feel like believing just because it feels good for a second or so to believe it, and then go off
preaching it, so we choose to do some homework before expressing ourselves. That's really about
the full size of it. If you wonder why we aren't "friendly", maybe it's the way "friendship" is
defined by the believers, and maybe that's not something any of us "evil outsiders" are
interested in playing along with. I know I'm not. I'm quite content to be on the "outside" of
this group and the alleged belief system, in fact.
>
>> So, my question to you is, do you want to continue the discussion, and if so, for what
>> purpose?
>
> i don't have a BIG desire to continue.
> i honestly, HONESTLY, am trying to see where you and chuck and bidhati
> are coming from
> but as i already posted in the beginning of this thread i just can't
> seem to agree with a couple of the main observations you have about
> ACIM (the CIA /cult connection, and the harmful/negative aspect).
Ok, but based on what? Study, research, observation, or just your feelings about the matter? I
don't seek your agreement, but I also don't wish to address disagreement that isn't founded in as
much time, energy, and thought as our conclusions or operating theories are. Some discussions
aren't worth having, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. The three of us who are
reseaching this matter have posted a lot of information about it, have you read any of it?
>
> so be it.
>
> but i do want to stay open minded...and may still post a comment or
> observation on something if i see it.
Hopefully one that's based on you at least being familiar with the information that forms the
basis of our observations.
>
> if i see something that's convincing to me, i'll post about that too.
And again, hopefully on the same basis.
>
> while i find it a little bit suspicious that Thetford and MKULTRA and
> the CIA were floating around at that time, i still haven't seen
> anything that really convinces me that ACIM wasn't "spiritually"
> inspired.
Carrie, maybe?? :D But half way joking aside, this is why I asked about your thoughts on the
behaviors and claims made by your fellow believers. If you aren't interested in evaluating the
results of one having faithfully studied ACIM, even for years, I'm not clear what you are basing
this opinion on. If ACIM doesn't produce followers who demonstrably have the qualities and
behaviors it claims to teach and inspire, what does that say about the "teacher"? If ACIM
produces dishonest, dysfunctional, manipulative strategizers, people who have no qualms or
compulsions about making false claims about themselves in order to influence others, what does
that say about the "teacher"? If you can write off behaviors that aren't characteristic of the
claims made by ACIM with the explanation that it's just because some don't "get it", what does
that say about the "teacher"? Without need of speculating on the true source of the materials, I
have an impossible time seeing anything "spiritual" about it, myself. I read it as a roadmap to
dysfunction, and that's what I see in the followers, so I have no compelling need to speculate
around those observations. I know it contains a lot of "spiritual" sounding words and phrases,
but I also know what they are actually saying, which is fundamentally that human nature is evil,
something to overcome, and I know that the first step to co-dependency is dehumanization.
I wonder how you are making your evaluations on these matters.
>
> so that's where i am at.
Fair enough.
>
>> Because right now, your personal beliefs have led you to a place that I don't have any issue
>> with. Right now, in this moment anyway. It's MY issue to pursue information about ACIM and
>> other belief systems of questionable authority.
>
> and you are perfectly entitled to do this, and this doesn't bother me
> as much as it used to.
That's good. Have you thought about why it bother/ed you in the first place?
>
>
> > Is it yours? That's the question.
I have no need to convince you that ACIM came from a CIA
>> think tank, it's your decision whether or not to invest in thinking along those lines.
>
> i will certainly be glad to entertain and try, as i have done, to see
> the "other side" of things,
> in a non-yelling manner, for whatever comes down the road.
Yelling never helped anyone figure anything out, that's for sure. I feel more hopeful for your
blood pressure now!
>
>>
>> The information that led three of us here, and others elsewhere to SIMILAR conclusions is all
>> over this newgroup, and all over the internet. I didn't arrive at it because someone out
>> debated
>> me. It arrived to me, really, because it all started to unfold as a result of unrelated
>> interests, and because so much of it arrived, it became an interest unto itself for me. I
>> think
>> I can safely speak for both Chuck and Bidhati in saying that they weren't ever out looking for
>> it
>> either, but that they both found certain pieces of information compelling enough to encourage
>> them to pursue the project of trying to piece the puzzle together.
>
> and that's fine. i take your word to be true on this.
Thank you, that's a refreshing change. It is the only equitable and productive way to address
the statements of others, unless there is tangible or compelling evidence to the contrary. It's
easy to make things up, but not honest or productive.
>
>>
>> As with all research, there comes a point where those engaged in it will start to compare
>> notes
>> and test each other's theories. From that process, if done with objectivity and a committment
>> to
>> the same standards of testing, will usually come a working theory that has enough substance to
>> it
>> that it's worth publishing as an informational tool for further research. That's somewhere
>> about
>> where Chuck and I are on this issue. It does not say that we have proved our theory, only
>> that
>> we've tossed around enough information to establish that we have a valid enough working
>> theory
>> to warrant more input and further research.
>
> i have doubts about ANYONE's ability to come to anything more than
> suspicion and speculation on some of these matters, BUT, like I
> promised--i will keep an open mind and put in a sincere effort, as the
> need arises, to see the "other side".
Not all suspicions and speculations are equal. A lot of things can't be proved with visual
evidence, but we do acknowledge such a thing as circumstantial evidence in this country. I agree
though, that circumstantial evidence must be compelling before being offered as a respectable
theory. The problem with this MK-ULTRA topic is that it's a true octopus, but as far as Helen
and Bill's involvement, that's not really much of an octopus at all. The fact is that we know the
circumstances of their employment, what they were researching, and what the purpose and goals of
that research were. For me, it isn't a stretch to arrive at the conclusion that should we
discover that Jesus worked the night shift at a bread and fish mass production factory, the story
of the Loaves and Fishes miracle wasn't likely as miraculous as it was claimed. I don't know
about how you arrive at your conclusions on these matters, and that is really the functional
issue in any discussion or debate. There's no point in presenting tangible evidence or
information to people who don't use tangible evidence or information to form their conclusions.
>
>
>>
>> None of this has anything to do with me, Chuck, and Bidhati being bitter ex-culties, having
>> axes
>> to grind, being mentally unstable, hateful, fearful, and only really in need of love and
>> understanding from strangers we don't much like over the internet, one person posing as three
>> people, or any of us being anyone but who we claim to be.
>
> again, i take you at your honest word on this.
Thanks, it's the only way to go, barring tangible evidence to the contrary, if you are seeking
reasonable relationships or meaningful communication with others.
>
> i guess the ONLY thing i would ask of you (and others) in your pursuit
> of these matters is to be honest. with yourselves and with others.
> other than that, i will start taking you on your honest word(s) on
> these issues....even if i end up disagreeing. fair enough?
Disagreement isn't the problem, again, it's the basis of the disagreement. You have no reason to
question my, Chucks, or bidhati's honesty on the basis of any facts, so it sounds fair enough to
me.
>
>
> i guess the answer is no. i'm finished with it, for now. but reserve
> the right to comment in the future.
>
> and thank you, it was nice having a civil discussion with you about
> these matters...and while it wasn't easy for me, i think it was a good
> thing for me to try and see these things from a totally different
> perspective than i'm used to.
You're welcome and thank you too, for making the effort. I suspect it will get easier and easier
for you, but I appreciate that you did something that was difficult for you in the interest of
civility.
>
>
>> Did you have a fun birthday?
>
> no. but that's ok. i got a couple of guitar stands/mic stands.
> a buddy and me are working on a demo cd.
> i'll get ya some mp3 copies or something when we finish up.
> it's fun stuff.
Good, I'd like to hear that.
>
jfd...@yahoo.com
someone who doesn't possess even basic ethical standards? If you can't
acknowledge even the basic principle that whatever standard you apply
to others should apply to yourself --then obviously an discussion with
you is nothing but an exercise in chaos and pathological strangeness.
In addition, you have no notion of the value of consistency. You often
tell people one thing and then tell the opposite the next day, or even
the next paragraph, as though giving your opinion in discussion is
completely divorced from any notion of correct thinking or
responsibility for your thinking. Consequently, discussing anything
with Carrie, much less metaphysics is like discussing something with a
child, or alternatively an old, under-educated and mean-spirited woman
who values making trouble and chaos where ever she goes, then acting
like a child when someone notices.
Why not act like a decent human being before attempting to understand
ACIM? Its unlikely, cupcake if you don't understand its unethical and
wrong to lie, spread malicious gossip and make trouble, that you will
understand the higher concepts offered by Course study.
A
[snip]
>> I think what frustrates John about you, Carrie,
>> is that you go out of your way to defend Katie,
>> when she's obviously here only to ridicule you,
>> and anybody else who follows ACIM. That itself,
>> is not the problem. You attack back in your own
>> passive aggressive manner if it's anybody else,
>> but step in to take the bullet, if you perceive
>> that somebody is responding to Katie in the way
>> that she has communicated. It's smacks of utter
>> hypocrisy, because it shows two things: 1) ACIM
>> is something which you apply as a standard only
>> when it's convenient for you. 2) You don't mind
>> posters here being attacked if it's Katie doing
>> the name calling yet bristle if anybody replies
>> to her in kind. Curious, when it's Katie or you
>> doing it you were just being "open and honest",
>> but if it's anybody else, they're not acting in
>> accordance to ACIM teachings. You apply ACIM as
>> both a dagger and a shield, then wonder why you
>> get treated the way you do by the posters here?
> -------------------------------
>
> But, I'm not supposed to notice that John continually lumps me in
> with Katie (even in regard to his rants about her and factnet) and
> refers to me as "Carrie and her gang" (etc)?
Exactly my point. You don't expect anybody else to
notice when Katie calls women here "cunts", or the
way she is uncivil to just about everybody else. A
sure sign that you're using double standards here.
> I don't feel I defend Katie. I believe she, like everyone has a
> right to say what she wants here, on an unmoderated board.
There you go again. Katie has the right to say what
she wants, apparently without anybody here reacting
to it, yet _you_ react when something is said about
you, or about Katie, for that matter. IOW, you only
justify reacting when it's you or her. Why is this?
[snip]
> John can say what he wants to me and call me "internet trash" but
> I can't ask him a question (meant in all sincerity) about how he
> relates something to ACIM?
You're missing my point. Why hold John to different
standards than you hold yourself _or_ Katie to? You
contintually claim that you (you & Katie), are just
being open and honest. Yet you question others when
according to your standard, they're doing the same.
[snip]
A
> Is it all that hard? We the "unenlightened" are simply not willing to believe everything we
> feel like believing just because it feels good for a second or so to believe it, and then go off
> preaching it, so we choose to do some homework before expressing ourselves.
I suppose the lobotomy you had made you forget
about the years you followed Lazaris around???
Noggin
> Chuck wrote:
>
> To illustrate, we humans can build boxes around ourselves
>> based on almost anything and if ACIM is used to "build a box" around
>> oneself, I would consider that a negative or harmful result.
>
> you are failing to consider that ACIM does more than just build boxes
> around people.
> there is a possibility that it might actually be good for some.
It doesn't claim to possibly be actually good for some, it claims to be a required course in
miracles. Studies show that most people have an immediate benefit upon adopting a new belief
system, simply because they were just looking for and ready for a change. Alcoholics might stop
drinking, rageaholics might stop raging, etc, but the long term benefit of most of these dubious
belief systems that require blind faith, inspire fanaticism and require one to default against
common sense is glaringly missing, despite any early "improvements". None of them can be shown
to inspire behaviors or emotional states that are above and beyond those of the average person
who never bothered themselves with them, or who have a completely different one. Often the
behaviors and relationships become far worse though.
>
>> openly, I doubt a closed case with a smoking gun would do anything for
>> you either.
>
>
> try not to BOX me in too much...if i see something convincing or more
> than just suspicion and conjecture i will consider it deeply.
>
> and yes, i do find it somewhat intriguing and suspicious that there
> were CIA/MkUltra/Thetford/Gittinger things going on around at the time
> ACIM was 'scribed'
That's good, because it is intriguing and suspicious no matter which way you cut it. Anyone who
is willing to completely discount it or who tries to marginalize or insult another for
entertaining the possibilities is just avoiding the issue and trying to manipulate others out of
addressing it, and that's the exact kind of destructive behaviors I mentioned above that are
found to ingrain themselves among people who share philosophies or beliefs that are fundamentally
dehumanizing to begin with. There is no other way to defend them, at the end of the day.
starchil...@hotmail.com
notice when Katie calls women here "cunts", or the
way she is uncivil to just about everybody else. A
sure sign that you're using double standards here.
I don't remember Katie calling women here "cunts". I know some have
(Bodhi was one) but I must have missed Katie doing it. Stupid idiots
and brain dead zombies, maybe.
I don't think Katie is anymore uncivil to people than John is. And
others, for that matter.
If one is looking to see someone as being uncivil. They can pick and
choose and see it the way they want in who they want.
John has told me I write obsenities all over the internet which I
don't see (for example)
> I don't feel I defend Katie. I believe she, like everyone has a
> right to say what she wants here, on an unmoderated board.
>>>There you go again. Katie has the right to say what
she wants, apparently without anybody here reacting
to it, yet _you_ react when something is said about
you, or about Katie, for that matter. IOW, you only
justify reacting when it's you or her. Why is this?
I think this is the other way around. John can make things up and
call people names and nobody seems to care, but they jump on Katie
about it. To me, the difference in this is, John is a self-proclaimed
"ACIM student" and should know better. Katie doesn't have a good
opinion and picture of ACIM, and I started to realize her side of it
and why. Because of people like John and how they have jumped on her
when she questioned it and said what she thought about it. If anyone
got out of ego and defensiveness enough to look at this, they might get
a glimmer of what I mean.
> John can say what he wants to me and call me "internet trash" but
> I can't ask him a question (meant in all sincerity) about how he
> relates something to ACIM?
>>>>You're missing my point. Why hold John to different
standards than you hold yourself _or_ Katie to? You
contintually claim that you (you & Katie), are just
being open and honest. Yet you question others when
according to your standard, they're doing the same.
I know, a fine point, easy to miss.
Everyone is being open and honest. Some get called on this, and
made into "the enemy" and some (like John) don't.
I do see some here as, what I had thought of as ACIM experts. Lee
is another one. I read some of what he's written here (to me, also) in
amazment. I mean, to me, he was someone who went back to the start, he
had his picture taken with Judy Skutch! And he's calling people names,
defending himself, attacking and arguing on an internet discussion
board?
Same with John,.regardless of if Katie does the same thing and
deserves what he feels he is giving her (back) (and giving me because
he seems me as being on her side- not seeing her as the enemy like I'm
supposed to) does that make it right? And he ties me in with her,
mainly because I won't agree with him and help attack her and try and
drive her away, or whatever he wants to do.
Aside from all this, isn't it another day? Isn't it NOW? Isn't one
major point of ACIM "at each moment we can start again?" Isn't another
goal to let go of grievances and forgive and see the Face of Christ,
and maybe get along?
Of course, I can do this without saying anything about it. That's a
key. Like when Kay was seeing Ammi as a mean person who shouldn't be
allowed online (or maybe even to live) and I said I used to feel the
same way but now see him differently. She never seemed to forgive me
for this. Because she felt I was taking his side, against her.
Just because it had been my experience (with him and others online)
I didn't have to say so. It probably wasn't the most peaceful and
joining thing to say, at the time, even if I felt it was my truth and I
was sharing it.
Is it possible to write on a board (for example) and say "I hear
you" to everyone, and not be seen as taking sides? To me, this would
come across as fake. If someone did it to me, It'd seem like how I
might feel is being invalidated (word of the day (LOL)
Like now, if I started writing to John and saying you are right,
Katie is a really bad person and I'll join you in your campaign to get
rid of her, and spread the truth about her all over the internet and
even get a lawyer into it, etc. would he feel better?
I don't know. I don't think, if I were him, I would.
Maybe I shouldn't be writing to John at all. It just feeds
whatever is driving him, and gives him more to be angry and rave about
and make me into. I wonder if he really feels better about this? The
same can be said for Katie, does writing here give her something
positive in her life?
Who knows, I can only go by me and focus on me, and not how others
seem to be, and how I might change them.
I really think you're trying to help me. Even though, at times you
come across as kind of harsh and critical (I remember Marianne
Williamson saying she never felt open to learning anything from anyone
she felt was yelling at her. Once you feel criticized, and defensive,
it's hard to learn anything good from it)
Maybe you could make a list of what you see as what I do wrong, and
how you feel I should be? In a more specific way?
It's kind of vauge to say I'm holding John to a different standard
than Katie, even though, to me, he supposedly knows (and claims to
believe) ACIM and she doesn't and I can see why should would feel the
way she does about it. And, overall people either take John's side no
matter what (or tolerate him, or ignore it- like all the reposts he'd
put on at times, like someone calling someone a pig fucker? That wasn't
really necessary, at the time, but everyone kind of looked the other
way, or didn't care. And all his ranting about Wayne Austin and him
having sex with women in EOTS? People focus on Katie and how bad and
mean and wrong she is, but don't hold John (a COURSE STUDENT, an
example of this) to any standards at all.)
It might be helpful if you could make a more specific list or my
faults and how you think I could be, to somehow be "better".
Aside from that, I think me responding to and trying to have
discussions with (and giving attention to) John, is the main problem
here. I seem to antagonize him, and feed him more stuff to make into
whatever he's trying to prove about me- for whatever reasons.
Always seems to come down to "don't say anything to anyone about
anything" or... figure out what the game is, and play it (which seems
like a waste of time to me)
~ Carrie
jfd...@yahoo.com
treated the way you do by the posters here?"
Gee, A. Posters have given this lecture to Carrie a hundred times.
Yet she never changes? How come? The answer is not that Carrie is
dumb or simple but "sincere," but rather the obvious that she's here
for the same reason Katie Dean is here. To stick it to people she
doesn't particularly like. The Carrie and Katie alliance went back
before either posted to this newsgroup. Back to the days when Katie
Dean was more concerned with trashing Lazaris than ACIM.
Back then Carrie was causing trouble for Raj and everyone who had a
private ACIM discussion board. Carrie was asking for Raj's financial
statements and property tax records at the same time she was attempting
to post to private Course lists who had banned her or even moved and
changed their passwords in order to get away from her obnoxious,
disruptive behavior. Sometime in there cult-hating Katie Dean and
course-student hating Carrie met up, and formed an alliance. Carrie
would never attack Katie and would always defend her against the
"spiritual people," who rejected her and whom she thought were
hypocrites. In turn, Katie Dean would do all the real dirty work.
Moreover, they shared a common dislike for Nancy L. Its not surprising
both ended up on TRCM, with Katie trashing Nancy and Carrie defending
Katie, while claiming Nancy and everyone else were hypocrites for not
accepting and loving Katie.
Gee, what a con and the Katie and Carrie con still is working today.
Two old, neurotic women who like nothing better than sticking it to
"spiritual people," and figure they can get more mileage working
together than working separate. Nothing more than the common sorority
ploy of pretending to be a friend then sabotaging every defense against
someone trashing your reputation. In other words, two nut case. Two
peas in the same pod. Not poor, simple, naive Carrie. Nothing else
explains the facts. Carrie is about as naive as O. J. Simpson, arguing
his blood-shrunken glove no longer fits.
jfd...@yahoo.com
(Bodhi was one) but I must have missed Katie doing it. Stupid idiots
and brain dead zombies, maybe.
Oh, the "I don't see that defense."
ROTFLMAO. You are lying and can't miss that Katie is calling woman
cunts, using every obscenity know to man, and regularly trashing Jesus,
the Holy Spirit. Why can't you miss it? Because she does this nearly
every day and Google achieves her posts. Why call Alan in effect a
liar, when you can do a google search, for "cunts,: and "Noggin," and
see how often Katie Dean has called others around here "cunts."
Moreover you must know she continues to call Lee Flynn a "queen." So
again, you are nothing more than a liar for Katie Dean.
Moreover, I DON'T use obscenities. You'd be hard pressed to find any
archived post where I called anyone an obscenity or used an obscenity.
Moreover you do use obscenities and you are often rude and uncivil to
others. The idea is that other people are rude and uncivil and Carrie
is somehow is not, is nothing more than the blatant self-promotion at
the expense of others for which you are so famous. Part of the famous
Carrie and Katie act. Find any post, I've written to you, were there
is not a Carrie post doing the same or doing worse. Find any post
written where Katie Dean isn't calling you something worse than anyone
here has ever called you. Again, what a liar!
What you are upset about is I upset the Carrie and Katie "lets trash
the Course list," act. Which is why you want to argue I do the same
thing as Katie Dean and you do nothing at all. You are here to scream,
"victim," whenever anyone questions Katie Dean's right to be an
obnoxious, hate monger. Which, cupcake makes you a hate monger.
Your long history of unconscionable lying, gossip and trashing Course
lists proves the point. No one wants you around because, like Katie
Dean you act like an obnoxious piece of Internet trash. If you want to
debate whether you an unconscionable liar, gossip and troublemaker
--why not give it a try? We can call for a hand vote to see who wins.
Maybe you'll get Katie Dean Vollmer to vote you are not an Internet
creep, but even that is unlikely. It rather obvious Katie Vollmer has a
worse opinion of you than anyone here, and she knows you better than
anyone here.
jfd...@yahoo.com
matter what (or tolerate him, or ignore it- like all the reposts he'd
put on at times, like someone calling someone a pig fucker? That wasn't
really necessary, at the time, but everyone kind of looked the other
way, or didn't care. And all his ranting about Wayne Austin and him
having sex with women in EOTS? People focus on Katie and how bad and
mean and wrong she is, but don't hold John (a COURSE STUDENT, an
example of this) to any standards at all.)"
Would you like to debate this Ms. Carrie? The reason why calling
posters "pig fuckers," on a miracles newsgroup, should be noticed,
addressed an dealt with, is because this obscene name calling is used
to trash this newsgroup, trash ACIM and dishonestly intimidate
legitmate course students from posting on a miracles group. In other
words its a Gestap intimidation tactic which you use and support as a
means of sticking to people around here you don't particually like. Not
suprising you want to defend this crapola and make any who objects to
it somehow wrong.
As far as Wayne and Eots they were using this newsgroup to push Eots
and trash ACIM and course students. Not unlike what you and Katie Dean
Vollmer and a few of your Cosmic Fool friends do around here. What
exactly is wrong about re-posting statements made by Wayne about having
sex with his devotees, if Wayne and his krew is here trashing ACIM?
Gee, you think people might use this information to make an informed
decision about Eots. What's clear is Carrie has no problem with anyone
posting trash about ACIM, but certainly has a problem with posters who
complain. Why is that cupcake? Maybe because like Wayne and the rest of
the "pig fucker," posters, you think everyone around here makes you
want to puke.
Katie Dean and Cosmic Fool, Wayne and Eots, Bidhati/Bodhi, and assorted
other idiots like yourself could be called the "course students make me
want to puke crowd." Isn't that right, Carrie? Which is why you so
enjoy the game of provoking and baiting "pig fucker," Course students
so you can scream, "hypocrite," when anyone complains.
Nancy
> I do see some here as, what
> I had thought of as ACIM experts. Lee
> is another one. I read some of what
> he's written here (to me, also) in
> amazment. I mean, to me, he was some-
> one who went back to the start, he
> had his picture taken with Judy
> Skutch! And he's calling people names,
> defending himself, attacking and
> arguing on an internet discussion
> board?
I'm going to take one more stab at this,
and if it doesn't work, I'm going to try
to remember to hold my piece/peace on
this topic.
Carrie, the ONLY behavior, the ONLY thoughts
the course directs us to be concerned with are
our OWN. This means that I am responsible for
mine and you are responsible for yours.
Nowhere in the course, nowhere in the New
Testament, for that matter, are we directed
to go out to monitor the thoughts and
behavior of others.
Certainly it would be the course ideal if each
of us was seeing the face of Christ in Katie
and in you, but if that is not happening, it
is not your concern.
> Same with John, regardless of if Katie
> does the same thing and deserves what he
> feels he is giving her (back) (and
> giving me because he seems me as being
> on her side- not seeing her as the enemy
> like I'm supposed to) does that make it
> right? And he ties me in with her,
> mainly because I won't agree with him
> and help attack her and try and
> drive her away, or whatever he wants to do.
You keep bringing John up when you are not
responsible for John. You are responsible for
YOU. John is responsible for John.
Here's what I see happening: Over the
years the following sequence of
steps has been repeated NUMEROUS times.
1. Someone is trashing an online discussion
group.
2. The denizens of the group protest.
3. You defend the trasher.
4. The denizens get annoyed with you.
5. You start leaving messages written in
the passive voice about how all you do is
express your honest thoughts and feelings
and, in return, you have been told this
and that and you have been treated this
and that way.
6. This goes on until folk get fed up and
stop responding to you.
7. Then you usually leave for awhile.
8. When you return, you post normally for a
bit.
9. The process starts up again.
Some of us here have been through several of
these cycles with you, so we can predict the
course of them. It is surprising to some that
you can follow the same exact steps over and
over and still have apparently no insight into
the process.
We also get annoyed. (And, yes, we do know
that we are not seeing the face of Christ in
you, but that is OUR responsibility, not yours.)
> Aside from all this, isn't it another
> day? Isn't it NOW? Isn't one major point
> of ACIM "at each moment we can start
> again?" Isn't another goal to let go
> of grievances and forgive and see the
> Face of Christ, and maybe get along?
Absolutely. It sure is. Since the only
thoughts and behavior that should concern
you are YOURS, I guess your next step is
clear to you.
n.
maz
maz: "con"- i had to look up in the dic.
adv. against (a proposition, opinion, etc.)
v. learn by heart, memorize; cheat, deceive
n. deceit, swindle, fraud; convict, inmate
"nut case"is a mystery to me. (nuts and cases)
"more mileage working"? a reason to join...."sorority" exposed....
>>[...] Not poor, simple, naive [...]. <<
I don't think so.
Hey, how much sacred Course study is going on here, 4 us?
oneLove, maz
jfd...@yahoo.com
oneLove, maz
Not much.
starchil...@hotmail.com
I don't remember Katie calling women here "cunts". I know some have
(Bodhi was one) but I must have missed Katie doing it. Stupid idiots
and brain dead zombies, maybe
Oh, the "I don't see that defense."
>>>>ROTFLMAO. You are lying and can't miss that Katie is calling
woman
cunts, using every obscenity know to man, and regularly trashing Jesus,
the Holy Spirit.
Every obsecnity known to man? regularly trashing Jesus and the Holy
Spirit? Calling women cunts?
No, I don't remember this. I've only seen YOU writing about people
(like Katie) doing this.
Which is something, apparently nobody else here ever sees.
>>>> Why can't you miss it? Because she does this nearly
every day and Google achieves her posts.
Maybe you see it differently than I do. Which, of course, makes me
wrong.
>>>>Why call Alan in effect a
liar
I don't remember calling Alan a liar, in effect or not. I thought
we were having an in depth conversation about my faults and what I
could/should do about them. Alan's trying very hard to help me learn.
Isn't this the same Alan you used to write about and repost and make
out as so terrible, and call him "sniper"?
Does Alan feel I'm calling him a liar?
>>>>when you can do a google search, for "cunts,: and "Noggin," and
see how often Katie Dean has called others around here "cunts."
Moreover you must know she continues to call Lee Flynn a "queen." So
again, you are nothing more than a liar for Katie Dean.
Why don't you do it and repost it all here? Show how Katie calls
women cunts and trashes Jesus and Holy Spirit everyday.
I don't think calling Lee "Queenie" is the same as calling a woman
a cunt.
It could be seen as a joke, even. Or (for Lee) a chance to rise
above it and not respond from ego. Does he need defense over a word on
a computer screen? Does he need you to go through all this to defend
him?
It could also be seen as none of your business, let Lee handle it if
he wants to and feels he is in need of defense. It's just one more
thing for you to grab onto and make into something more than it is, and
prove someone is wrong about.
Again, I can see where and how Katie gets her ideas about ACIM. If
you are an example of it.
>>>>Moreover, I DON'T use obscenities. You'd be hard pressed to find any
archived post where I called anyone an obscenity or used an obscenity.
Did I say you use obscentities? You said that I "use every
obscentity all over the internet". At the time I asked you to show me
where I did this. You also repost obsenities others write like the
continual reposting about pick fucking awhile back.
>>>>Moreover you do use obscenities and you are often rude and uncivil to
others.
I do? I say like "fuck off and die, John" and stuff like that? We
must be in alternate realities or something.
>>>> The idea is that other people are rude and uncivil and Carrie
is somehow is not, is nothing more than the blatant self-promotion at
the expense of others for which you are so famous. Part of the famous
Carrie and Katie act.
You don't think it's odd if we are joined in something, like an act,
Katie still treats me as bad as she does anyone else here?
>>>> Find any post, I've written to you, were there
is not a Carrie post doing the same or doing worse.
I don't have the time or energy. I can look down the side in
google and see you writing under every post of mine. Even if I stop
posting here you for awhile or not writing to you, you write to me.
Even if I don't respond to you (which would have been the key, long
ago. Stop responding to you, which is how most everyone else here is,
unless they agree with who you are going after and trashing. Then, it's
more than are using you.
>>>>Find any post
written where Katie Dean isn't calling you something worse than anyone
here has ever called you. Again, what a liar!
Didn't you just say 'the Carrie and Katie act"? And say (in other
posts) she is part of my gang?
What would you like me to do- if you see her calling me something
worse than anyone here has ever called me? Fight with her and try and
get rid of it?
I hardly read what she writes now. And, I would say, if I h ave to
decide who is calling me worse than someone else, I'd probably put you
right on the top of the list. If this is how I honestly feel about it
and see it, I must be a liar, and internet trash. Because otherwise I
wouldn't piss you off and make you write things like this to me, right?
>>>>What you are upset about is I upset the Carrie and Katie "lets trash
the Course list," act.
Well, are Katie and I together in this or is she worse to me than you
are?
I don't expect you to see it, and nobody will back me up in it
because you are going after someone they don't like (me) but if anyone
trashes this group, it's you. And you have the moderated one you
started, so you don't even have to be on this one.
>>>> Which is why you want to argue I do the same
thing as Katie Dean and you do nothing at all. You are here to scream,
"victim," whenever anyone questions Katie Dean's right to be an
obnoxious, hate monger. Which, cupcake makes you a hate monger.
And what are you and why are you here? To point out the faults and
why this group is no good, and why you needed a moderated one for
"civil course discussion" where not everyone would be allowed to say
what they want? To protect others from needing to ever learn to deal
with how someone else might be, they don't happene to like? To never
have to read what they don't want to read (like about themselves)?
>>>Your long history of unconscionable lying, gossip and trashing Course
lists proves the point.
And you have gone a very long way to make this my history, haven't
you, John?
Does this make you a very nice person, and is this what a ACIM
student does to live his beliefs?
>>>>No one wants you around because, like Katie
Dean you act like an obnoxious piece of Internet trash.
Apparently you are correct in this, because if it wasn't true people
would be jumping on you and pointing out what you're doing here that
makes you as bad, or worse than the people you do it too. But, you're
doing it to someone they don't like, and don't want around and at some
point, if you keep it up enough I'll leave.
How much simplier it would be for you to go write on the moderated
group you set up to get away from internet trash and liars, gossips and
no good people like me?
Obnoxious piece of internet trash. Do you really feel good calling
someone this? Someone you've never even met and don't really know
anything about, as a person? Does it make you feel like a big man,
defender of A Course in Miracles, that says "As I see my Brother I will
see myself?"
What a waste of time, asking you questions. Or even responding to
you, like I've done for so long, in an attempt to communicate and work
out whatever your problem with me is.
But, you know what? It's not my problem. It's yours.
>>>> If you want to debate whether you an unconscionable liar, gossip and troublemaker
--why not give it a try?
Awhile ago I was talking to someone who really lives what she believes
ACIM says. Some on another board were talking about her and a decision
she had made they didn't agree with, and trying to get her to come
there and "discuss" it with them and maybe change her mind.
She said she wasn't going to. They have already made up there mind,
anyway. So why defend and argue.
>>>> We can call for a hand vote to see who wins.
You've said this before and nobody voted. Do you think anyone would
vote for me to stay, and risk getting you after them, like you have
been me, because I said I understand why Katie feels the way she does
about ACIM and people who preach it?
Then, again, you are being used by some who enjoy you going after me,
and telling me what they might think and feel but don't have the guts
to come out and say. And say so well, like you do.
>>>>Maybe you'll get Katie Dean Vollmer to vote you are not an Internet
creep, but even that is unlikely. It rather obvious Katie Vollmer has a
worse opinion of you than anyone here, and she knows you better than
anyone here.
Maybe she'll now see some hope in you, to get you out of the cult.
Like she currently does with Jason.
It's been fun, John. I'm a slow learner, and just starting to
realize that just the act of giving you attention, has been feeding you
and tying in with this and giving you a chance to do- well, what you do
best. Keep the internet (and Jesus, Holy Spirit and ACIM) safe and
clean from obnoxious internet trash creeps.
As always it comes down to choices.
You're a great teacher.
~ Carrie
jfd...@yahoo.com
liar, gossip and troublemaker. I have no such reputation but you do.
Why attempt to make it about me, when its about you? As far as I can
see, you lie, gossip and make trouble all the time, and when anyone
calls you on it you make it about them, and your critics not following
"The Course."
Have you ever considered you are just an under-educated old woman with
a lot of unresolved issues you want to make right at the expense of
other people on the Internet?
starchil...@hotmail.com
thoughts and behavior that should concern
you are YOURS, I guess your next step is
clear to you.
n.
----------------------
Yes, it is.
Thanks for the feedback.
~ Carrie
A
>> Exactly my point. You don't expect anybody else to
>> notice when Katie calls women here "cunts", or the
>> way she is uncivil to just about everybody else. A
>> sure sign that you're using double standards here.
> -----------------------
>
> I don't remember Katie calling women here "cunts".
Selective memory? It's funny, Carrie, because
you even pointed out I'd re-posted this here:
:Now we have Holey Ellen following suit, or claiming to
:anyway, stating as her excuse that I called her a cunt.
:
:But, let's face it, it isn't my use of words like "cunt" or
:"pussy" that is the problem here, Ellen is no innocent babe
:in the woods, she can hold her own with any swearing sailor.
:
:Oh, bored with the Cunt Show? Or is it the wee fellas who
:got bored? That's the problem with middle aged women and
:silly little boys, it's all giggles, fumbles and quick get-aways.
:
:You're just a cheap tacky cunt Nancy, when you get right
:down to it.
:
:You're a nasty little cult cunt aren't you Nancy?
A
[snip]
> I don't think Katie is anymore uncivil to people than John is. And
> others, for that matter.
Maybe that's because you don't think, Carrie:
:Now we have Holey Ellen following suit, or claiming to
:anyway, stating as her excuse that I called her a cunt.
:
:But, let's face it, it isn't my use of words like "cunt" or
:"pussy" that is the problem here, Ellen is no innocent babe
:in the woods, she can hold her own with any swearing sailor.
:
:Oh, bored with the Cunt Show? Or is it the wee fellas who
:got bored? That's the problem with middle aged women and
:silly little boys, it's all giggles, fumbles and quick get-aways.
:
:You're just a cheap tacky cunt Nancy, when you get right
:down to it.
:
:You're a nasty little cult cunt aren't you Nancy?
:
:Your a fucking predator Nancy, a total vampire.
:
:You're a fucking liar on top of everything else Nancy, and a
:pathetic one.
:
:You're a fucking lame ass dime a dozen spineless chiropractor
:big whoop.
:
:Do you live in her skin you fucking big mouthed shit for
:brains idiot?
:
:Fucking nasty ass zombie.
:
:I do know MEAN though, so don't try to fuck with my head,
:fucking wanna be slapping smirker in training.
:
:Fucking BITCH.
:
:But this fucking religion you are making living and a sex life
:out of doesn't have any special excuses.
:
:And you think someone here deserves a kind or civil word from me,
:precisely why Sheryl? Given that I'm not interested in joining
:your dirty little cult and have no agenda to pose as someone who
:gives a shit about anyone but myself. Like you do.
:
:As it happens, I make it a rule to be as rude as possible to
:holey people, it's the only right thing to do.
:
:I have met the Dalai Lama and some of his monks. We didn't
:discuss his holeyness so all went well. The Pope can kiss my
:Irish ass. He's already stooped over low enough to make the target.
:
:This shit works on you? Do you succeed in getting anyone else to
:volunteer for a butt fucking with this kind of nonsense, or do you
:just think it's deep because it worked when Wayne pulled it on you?
:
: - Katie Dean aka Noggin, webmaster of "The Cosmic Fool"
A
[snip]
It's a lot like dealing with a person who farts
in the elevator for giggles. Yes, you know that
they are indeed a Son/Daughter of God, but that
doesn't stop you from wishing they'd leave, (or
at the very least find a less obnoxious habit).
starchil...@hotmail.com
you even pointed out I'd re-posted this here:
Isn't this what ACIM says? About forgiveness. Only remember the good.
T-17.III.1. To forgive is merely to remember only the loving thoughts
you gave in the past, and those that were given you. 2 All the rest
must be forgotten. 3 Forgiveness is a selective remembering, based not
on your selection.
A lot of the time, when I was using Outlook Express, when Katie got
going on someone (like using Nancy's name in subject lines) I'd put her
on block for awhile.
Do you really think (since, unlike me, you feel you think) that
fighting with Katie over this would have gotten her to stop it? Like if
I threatened her, asked her nicely, told her how I felt about it, etc?
Or, (like with John) it would just feed it and tie into it more and
keep it going?
I just put "Alan Sniper" in search and came up with pages of posts
by and about you (with quotes listed and reposts about you) where you
write as bad as, or are made out to be as bad as Katie. And,
comparable to John. it also seemed like some were making you out as
terrible (complete with quotes- though of the few I read, you key
phrase seemed to be "shit for brains") Maybe there's always gotta be
someone to side with or against and prove something about.
Nancy wrote me a post last night, part of which says.
NANCY
>>>>I'm going to take one more stab at this,
and if it doesn't work, I'm going to try
to remember to hold my piece/peace on
this topic.
Carrie, the ONLY behavior, the ONLY thoughts
the course directs us to be concerned with are
our OWN. This means that I am responsible for
mine and you are responsible for yours.
Nowhere in the course, nowhere in the New
Testament, for that matter, are we directed
to go out to monitor the thoughts and
behavior of others.
Certainly it would be the course ideal if each
of us was seeing the face of Christ in Katie
and in you, but if that is not happening, it
is not your concern.
CARRIE
> Same with John, regardless of if Katie
> does the same thing and deserves what he
> feels he is giving her (back) (and
> giving me because he seems me as being
> on her side- not seeing her as the enemy
> like I'm supposed to) does that make it
> right? And he ties me in with her,
> mainly because I won't agree with him
> and help attack her and try and
> drive her away, or whatever he wants to do.
NANCY
You keep bringing John up when you are not
responsible for John. You are responsible for
YOU. John is responsible for John.
CARRIE
> Aside from all this, isn't it another
> day? Isn't it NOW? Isn't one major point
> of ACIM "at each moment we can start
> again?" Isn't another goal to let go
> of grievances and forgive and see the
> Face of Christ, and maybe get along?
NANCY
Absolutely. It sure is. Since the only
thoughts and behavior that should concern
you are YOURS, I guess your next step is
clear to you.
n.
------------------------------
Applying this, I could ask "what does this have to do with you? Is
John in need of your defense- using Nancy as an excuse and proof that
he's right about Katie (and thus, now right about me)?
And, doesn't the last paragraph Nancy wrote apply to you, (and her)
and everyone else, too?
Aside from this, if Nancy has a problem with me "forgiving" Katie
(for calling her a cunt, even a year or so later) Or not even
remembering it (I remember Bodhi calling me, and others cunts, but that
was more recent) who's problem would that be? It seems like you are
only using Nancy to make me wrong- for "forgiving" Katie (which Nancy,
herself seems to have done) and siding with John in how he treats
people here.
Which is, of course, your choice. All I can do is make my own
choices in regard to it.
Which is no small lesson.
~ Carrie
jfd...@yahoo.com
is wrong but you.
What's amazing you complain about posters mistreating you, then in the
same post preach forgiveness to posters who complain about other
posters mistreating them. Sounds like the same old TRCM argument that
some people have the right to abuse others and some people don't. Gee,
talk about passive/aggressive.
So what is it, cupcake? If all mistreatment and trashing is wrong and
should be overlooked and forgiven --how come you are not overlooking
and forgiving all your perceived mistreatment? What can be more
obvious that you think you, Katie Dean and Bidhati/ Bodhi have the
right to trash "spiritual people," and Course hypocrites? You argue
when this happen you idiots are only being open and honest. You argue
that this is an unmoderated public forum, and have a right to trash
people. You argue trashing course students helps them learn lessons.
Then you when it suits you, you argue none of this happened, and if it
did happen, to forget it and forgive it --or be accused of hypocrisy!
Yet when someone complains about or trashes you or one of your friends
all the rules and arguments change. Posters who complain about or
criticize Carrie are not being "open and honest," but mean and
vindictive. Rather than an right to speak on an unmoderated public
forum, Carrie's critics are asked to leave TRCM for a moderated group.
Instead of learning the lessons you demand of others, you complain and
deny.
Gee, why would anyone ever think Carrie is a liar, gossip and perpetual
troublemaker? You are such a self-serving hypocrite it boggles the
mind.
Richard A. Thayer
maz wrote:
>>I have riled up
>>Maz,
>
>
> Linda, you have helped me, thanks for that.
>
> By the way to rile myself up is my own job,
> not yours. And I am much better at it than you! LOL
>
> Anyway, glad you're back. Maybe I'll dive into the
> archives for the response I intended to send you.
>
> Be well, maz.
And I'm back from my recent obligations
as well.
By now all the energies about our
past exchange have dissapated, ;-)
what was it even about ? I had my settings
changed
( in error )
to save only 30 messages-- instead of the last
30 days messages . So I don't have copies.
Do post it if you want to.
Yes I had a good laugh to think that you
are in charge of how riled up you can get.
Right! Else I wouldn't walk on the dangerous
sides of the street sometimes as I do here!
And, I like being the spark
that sets some things a'rolling anew or
at least out of some typical ruts.
LINDA T
starchil...@hotmail.com
should be overlooked and forgiven --how come you are not overlooking
and forgiving all your perceived mistreatment?
Would you like to start today, and forget the past, let all the
grievances go, and start again?
Anyone else interested in this?
>>>> What can be more
obvious that you think you, Katie Dean and Bidhati/ Bodhi have the
right to trash "spiritual people," and Course hypocrites?
Since they also could be seen as trashing me, does that make me part
of "spiritual people" or "course hypocrites"? Seems like it's two
different things.
>>>>and if it
did happen, to forget it and forgive it --or be accused of hypocrisy!
I accused someone of being a hypocrite? Recently?
I just asked if you were willing to forgive and forget, let the past
go, let go of grievences and the need to defend (counterattack) and
start again.
>>>>Yet when someone complains about or trashes you or one of your friends
all the rules and arguments change. Posters who complain about or
criticize Carrie are not being "open and honest," but mean and
vindictive. Rather than an right to speak on an unmoderated public
forum, Carrie's critics are asked to leave TRCM for a moderated group.
Instead of learning the lessons you demand of others, you complain and
deny.
I've asked why don't they write on the moderated group they created,
to get away from here, if they find so much fault with those who write
on this group.
If you don't like it, go on the better board. Instead of
criticizing, calling names, pointing out faults and making people wrong
(and taking/making sides) here.
Makes sense to me.
>>>>Gee, why would anyone ever think Carrie is a liar, gossip and perpetual
troublemaker? You are such a self-serving hypocrite it boggles the
mind.
And, I always will be, to you, unless, until you shift into Spirit,
and change YOUR mind about me.
But, it's your choice. My choice how I take it, or even if I bother
with it.
~ Carrie
Richard A. Thayer
jfd...@yahoo.com wrote:
> "Maz, John and Alan. The 3 founding fathers of the holy retreat for
> safer prose
> regarding the course in miracles."
>
> Too funny! One of the outstanding characteristics of a "spiritual
> sophisticate," is the conceite nothing much is sacred or needs to be
> sacred, and if anyone considers something worthy of being sacred or
> holy ---well that's the time to come in and blow up the place.
> Passion-less intellect is substituted for lack of passion. Sort of like
> old farts who keep assuring themselves life is much better now that
> raging hormones no longer course through their veins and distort an
> otherwise comfortable life. Forgetting, that passion is the stuff of
> life itself.
>
> A Course in Miracles, and this newsgroup in particular has become the
> domaine of old farts, who for the most part lack the passion to get out
> their chair or from in front of their computer --much less have passion
> for God and The Numinious. In all my years, in the Course Community I
> could count on one hand all the Course students who thought the Course
> was worth passionite study and whose study and contemplation should be
> considered holy. Though I've met of plenty of course students who
> attack any notion of holiness, sacredness and any display of reglious
> passion as though this was the devil, itself.
>
> The de-sacredization of the holy, the numinious is one of the purposes
> of this newsgroup, it is the reason Wapnick can postulate another Jesus
> and assume to re-write A Course in Miracles, it is also the reason
> Linda T. sees no reason to believe anything in this universe is worth
> bending her knees in humbliness to something greater. Lets say
> pathological pride is not what the Course teaches and not an attitude
> for much of anything but living out the remainder of a comfortable
> life. Comfort, perhaps but not God is the reward, for mocking the
> sacred.
Mocking the Sacred is a very interesting topic.
You've defined your idea of mocking.
In terms of old age and passion and your inspired
thoughts on those.
Interesting.
Now,
define your idea of THE SACRED.
Please do it,
happily and from the joy of your experience of it.
Speak of it from
WITHIN and how it affects YOUR LIFE.
Not just as if it's some vague thing "out there"
to stand in a pulpit and preach about.
My requirement for a decent explanation includes
none of this overly braggy 6th grade bully boy style
half sitting on the fence, half not bullshit
you call communication above.
While I await this perfect essay ( which might
be withheld in a fit of temper and boyish
tantrum)
I'll do an old person's thingy stuff n' such..
I just have to mention my life since it so
irks you for it to sound the way it does.
Dick's still up north at our vacation house,
my son and wife have left ( had a WONDERFUL
visit -- they are such great people) and as
usual, I'm having a very pleasant content non-
suffering day. I'm not without interruptions--
My neighbors's been over here
twice, and Instant messaged me 2 more times,
I'm going to water the wilting flowers in
my great garden, and I'm
going to see if I can finally finish the right
side of this sweater I'm knitting.
Looking forward to your gold star essay.
LINDA T
jfd...@yahoo.com
define your idea of THE SACRED."
Gee, such demands from someone who bows her knees to neither man nor
god.
starchil...@hotmail.com
years ago. I remember it as a pretty
good book.
n.
-----------------
I read half of it, got sidetracked and never got back to it.
It was good in a way, coming from the idea vampires are real, with
feelings and problems, etc. But, in another way, after awhile all that
biting and blood got a bit boring.
Same with the movie. ALL THAT BLOOD.
The cast was worth watching
Tom Cruise
Brad Pitt
Antonio Banderas
Christian Slater
Kirsten Dunst
I remember Kirsten (a young girl at the time) complaining on a talk
show because she HAD TO KISS Tom Cruise! She wasn't at the age where
kissing a handsome guy was positive to her.
~ Carrie
Nancy
> Mocking the Sacred is a very interesting topic.
Something like "Dropping ashes on the Buddha."
> You've defined your idea of mocking.
> In terms of old age and passion and your inspired
> thoughts on those. Interesting.
>
> Now,
> define your idea of THE SACRED.
And how does "sacred" differ from "special"?
Imo (only)... "holy" wars arise when
"specialness" is attached to a thought
system, and all we have to do to see this
is look around. One question that often
arises for me as I browse through the
course is "How do you recognize sacredness
without falling into the specialness
sink hole? And is it even possible?"
This might be a better topic for the
other board, though. What do you think?
> Dick's still up north at our vacation house,
> my son and wife have left ( had a WONDERFUL
> visit -- they are such great people) and as
> usual, I'm having a very pleasant content non-
> suffering day. I'm not without interruptions--
> My neighbors's been over here
> twice, and Instant messaged me 2 more times,
> I'm going to water the wilting flowers in
> my great garden, and I'm
> going to see if I can finally finish the right
> side of this sweater I'm knitting.
Thanks for the slice of life. :)
Nancy
Nancy
> Let's see in this week or 2
> I have riled up
> Maz, John and Alan. The 3 founding fathers
> of the holy retreat for safer prose
> regarding the course in miracles..
Hello? What about the founding
mothers? LOL!
Or don't we count if we're not riled?
Nancy
Richard A. Thayer
That you consider mine a "demand" request is
your first selection of an offering of defining
the Sacred.
Ok , I'm ok with that ..
There is no commandment that says thou shalt
not ask== to my knowledge..
Maybe the sacred never gets defined or
considered
here, unless there
is a demand for the definition? How natural
does it seem to be to speak of God, flowingly,
even by you, in such
a public place?
Now we both realize that there's much more
to the word Sacred , right?
And your bringing it up means there are many
ideas of it in your storehouse of trix.
Do you have anything else to say about the
sacred? So far it's been mostly about me,
the person.
And on that note, I've
got the gardens watered. Blissed out
on the 3 rose bushes that are blooming,
again blissed out on some remaining
raspberries that are finishing up the
crop.
I dunno about that degree of passionless.
Maybe I can crank it up watching
NASCAR racing while I knit.
I've done a load of laundry and made a big
pitcher of iced tea. The tea definitely gives
more passion than the laundry. Although I washed
sheets. They might be related to passion...
Can't offer you an angst moment, or sweaty
high anxiety yearning, just don't have
any at the moment.
The cooler,
now that she's in the air
conditioning again,
LINDA T
A
> > Selective memory? It's funny, Carrie, because
> > you even pointed out I'd re-posted this here:
>
> Isn't this what ACIM says? About forgiveness. Only remember the good.
Oh, so that's your excuse for saying this, you choose
"not to remember"? This is how the conversation went:
[unsnip]
>>>>Exactly my point. You don't expect anybody else to
>>>>notice when Katie calls women here "cunts", or the
>>>>way she is uncivil to just about everybody else. A
>>>>sure sign that you're using double standards here.
>>> I don't remember Katie calling women here "cunts".
--
:Now we have Holey Ellen following suit, or claiming to
:anyway, stating as her excuse that I called her a cunt.
:
:But, let's face it, it isn't my use of words like "cunt" or
:"pussy" that is the problem here, Ellen is no innocent babe
:in the woods, she can hold her own with any swearing sailor.
:
:Oh, bored with the Cunt Show? Or is it the wee fellas who
:got bored? That's the problem with middle aged women and
:silly little boys, it's all giggles, fumbles and quick get-aways.
:
:You're just a cheap tacky cunt Nancy, when you get right
:down to it.
:
:You're a nasty little cult cunt aren't you Nancy?
:
: - Katie Dean (aka Noggin) Webmaster of Cosmic Fool
A
> Isn't this what ACIM says? About forgiveness. Only remember the good.
[snip]
> I just put "Alan Sniper" in search and came up with pages of posts
> by and about you ...
So, you're chosing to remember something other
than "the good"? You're as phony as a 3 dollar
bill, Carrie.
jfd...@yahoo.com
Imo (only)... "holy" wars arise when
"specialness" is attached to a thought
system, and all we have to do to see this
is look around. One question that often
arises for me as I browse through the
course is "How do you recognize sacredness
without falling into the specialness
sink hole? And is it even possible?"
Gee, that's a sure formula for never having a passion in your life.
Case closed.
jfd...@yahoo.com
greater than herself? If you do see something greater than yourself
worthy of your passion then you wouldn't have to ask.
starchil...@hotmail.com
I remember Robin calling women cunts. And Kay getting into it with
Ammi over this.
But it's still over and done. I don't have a rewind button.
What would you like me to do about it now?
And what good does it do anyone to repost it over and over and over?
Bring the past into the present and make it real NOW?
~ Carrie
starchil...@hotmail.com
> by and about you ...
So, you're chosing to remember something other
than "the good"? You're as phony as a 3 dollar
bill, Carrie.
-----------------
I was refreshing my memory about it.
Doesn't mean they are good or bad.
I remembered someone reposting a lot about you, which was the first
impression I had of you (I actually thought you might be someone
dangerous, the way it sounded), but when you started posted, at the
time I was here, I saw you in a different way.
Not how some had tried to make you into.
~ Carrie
jfd...@yahoo.com
Gee, Carrie how many times when Katie tried to make Nancy in to
something, did you come to her defense, and claim Katie was only being
"open and honest."?
Makes one wonder if you will ever get past lying.
A
> I don't remember it.
Sigh. Let me refresh your selective memory, again.
> What would you like me to do about it now?
Admit that you were being a hypocrite, but I don't
expect that to happen anytime soon. Carrie, you're
the poster child for the invincibly ignorant. When
confronted with your hypocracy, you always pretend
that you can't see it. Here's something to ponder:
"Would you rather be right, or happy?" So far it's
obvious you prefer the former over the latter. You
get so far adrift of the orignal point that you're
responding to questions that were not asked in the
first place. This discussion began with me telling
you that you defend Katie, regardless of how vile,
while critisizing everybody else who then responds
to her. I pointed out that she's been the nastiest
person her, never civil to anybody, and has called
a number of women here "cunts". You claimed you're
unable to remember her doing so. Well here you go:
A
>>>>>> I just put "Alan Sniper" in search and came up with pages of posts
>>
>>by and about you ...
>
> So, you're chosing to remember something other
> than "the good"? You're as phony as a 3 dollar
> bill, Carrie.
> -----------------
>
> I was refreshing my memory about it.
But you just said that you only choose to remember
the good, hypocrite? And it's clear from your post
you consider what I said to be "bad". You are full
of shit, Carrie, and the sad thing is, you swim in
it absolutely oblivious that you're covered in it.
> Doesn't mean they are good or bad.
[snip bullshit]
Nancy
> And how does "sacred" differ from "special"?
>
> Imo (only)... "holy" wars arise when
> "specialness" is attached to a thought
> system, and all we have to do to see this
> is look around. One question that often
> arises for me as I browse through the
> course is "How do you recognize sacredness
> without falling into the specialness
> sink hole? And is it even possible?"
John:
> Gee, that's a sure formula for never
> having a passion in your life.
> Case closed.
I think a lot of people would agree
with you for sure -- and that may be
why the course's teachings on specialness
are mostly overlooked.
Still, the course places great emphasis
on these teachings and this leads me to
believe that "specialness" may NOT be
necessary for passion -- may even be a
substitute for passion.
n.
Richard A. Thayer
Nancy wrote:
> Richard A. Thayer wrote:
>
>
>>Mocking the Sacred is a very interesting topic.
>
> Nancy:
> Something like "Dropping ashes on the Buddha."
>
LINDA T :
Is that a well known line from something?
I like it. It would make some very interesting
poetry. I might fiddle with that today .
>
NANCY:
> And how does "sacred" differ from "special"?
>
> Imo (only)... "holy" wars arise when
> "specialness" is attached to a thought
> system, and all we have to do to see this
> is look around. One question that often
> arises for me as I browse through the
> course is "How do you recognize sacredness
> without falling into the specialness
> sink hole? And is it even possible?"
LINDA T:
Sure it is.
By not fearing the specialness journey
nor considering it ERROR or sin.
It's as much fun to take, as interesting
and fulfilling
as the opposite, where a person
slogs thru life saying
I'm a dragging
spiritual turd , an always
God castoff .
More Linda T thoughts
off the cuff:
Ii'll use the word God as my substitution
for the word Sacred.
God as a separation thought IS special.
God as an *INTEGRATED * thought (including the
-- now , as it is, ) is an unusual stance;
moving towards the *not *so *special.
I favor some of each stance in good balance as
my ideal for my living now.
The whole purity idea is near to impossible
for me, and I'll fiddle with aspects..
IMHO
Others might probably think
they can stomp out the possibility for
specialness by truth and virtuous living,
to keep the universe clean
in case God decides to visit their city
or them.
My idea of that:
Buy lots of brooms.
Dust happens...
I've personally explored integrating the sacred
within myself to what I can envisualize of the
ultimate, by degrees over the last 20 years
I'm up to the point of realizing we ARE GOd,
and I do it by taking the stance that this world
IS an expression of God.
Since that's a dividing line drawn by
course students so they can have their Civil War,
this becomes the real
pit of fire to present any ideas of non-separation
in.
So the ideas do get roasted.
it's inevitable at this level,
yet they don't die .
> This might be a better topic for the
> other board, though. What do you think?
Let's assume you're asking me.
I'm not on the other board. So it doesn't
matter LOL
But I did pose the suggestion
as a topic and you can certainly
take it anywhere you
like. Let's see I've given you 2 of these
now.
Exactly my purpose. Oft refered to here as
my specialness.. my attitude... my personal
FLAW my side line coaching ;-)
My purpose IS
To stir up some energy.
Even about the idea of the Sacred.
LINDA T
Richard A. Thayer
Nancy wrote:
This is the RILE meter special measure!
I think I got to some of you the week before! LOL
Should I say , ok.. what's your beef , now?
THis week..
HEY,
I'm working on the RESPECT thing . ( big giggle)
it takes time to adjust all the cells ...
So I'm buggin' you , again, huh.
Well lay it out. I'll read it..
I might not change. Tee hee...
But I'll read it. :-)
LINDA T
Richard A. Thayer
jfd...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Gee, how does one explain the sacred to someone who understands nothing
> greater than herself?
Oh, my understanding and my words are not
one perfect integration. You'll have to stab
at what pieces of meat are hanging over the
edges, same as always...
But hell, John, if you
realize something(s) and you've got some power
innately, anyway, is
one supposed to hide it under a bushel?
I decide not to play that game here.
Thou shalt be humble is so ooshy gooshy.
so squeezably soft.
Like Charmin toilet tissue, Mr Whipple.
Shall we make it kicky?
You can punish me now if you wish.
Think of the implications of that.
Kinda edgy. Kinda psuedo-machoistic...
Kinda sorta religious...
Punishment for S I N S....
If you do see something greater than yourself
> worthy of your passion then you wouldn't have to ask.
Actually no. There is always more.
Asking anytime for anything is
possible. Getting satisfied,,,, now that is
the challenge..
So then your choice is not to respond about the
Sacred.
OK.
I don't need your explanation.
I've sure worked on my own for many years..
and don't think anyone can really make me think
a certain way just because they write well.
But I'm always interested in reading other's
thoughts..
I haven't even gotten to NASCAR
and my knitting.
Would John L say I should now passionately
scream?? Cry out to God for more time,
or a better view?
I think I'll eat something instead, like
lunch.
LINDA T
starchil...@hotmail.com
obvious you prefer the former over the latter.
Your opinion.
I don't feel happy when I say something I don't honestly believe,
feel and mean. Even if it might make someone else happy to read it.
>>>This discussion began with me telling
you that you defend Katie, regardless of how vile,
while critisizing everybody else who then responds
to her. I pointed out that she's been the nastiest
person her, never civil to anybody, and has called
a number of women here "cunts". You claimed you're
unable to remember her doing so. Well here you go:
You want me to say I really remembered it when I didn't?
That something from the past that seemed real at one time and still
seems to be real to you now, is the same for me?
Isn't one goal of ACIM to realize the past is over, illusion, and
the only reality it has is what I give it?
And I give everything all and any meaning it has for me.
You can see Katie any way you want, and see me as defending her for
not seeing her the way you do.
You can even be right.
Big deal.
~ Carrie
:
starchil...@hotmail.com
something, did you come to her defense, and claim Katie was only being
"open and honest."?
Makes one wonder if you will ever get past lying.
------------------
I guess you're right. Maybe Katie isn't being open and honest when she
writes something.
Maybe she's pretending and lying.
I have no way of knowing this. Nobody really does, except Katie (or
anyone writing here).
I don't even know if you're being open and honest in what you write,
or just pretending and making stuff up about people and how you seem to
see them and feel about them.
~ Carrie