|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 53
RESPONDENT to Co-Respondent: You tell me what happens. CO-RESPONDENT: I don’t know. It’s just that you said if the cessation of feelings is to happen, it will happen on its own. There is that possibility but I also see the possibility that the mind may be able to influence change. Neural pathways, it seems, are strengthened by use – to use the simplest terms I can regurgitate right now. RESPONDENT: And that’s a good point. .. all answers are puke and regurgitation ... some people think their puke has a quality of freshness, vivacity, utitily and can send the puked-upon off into a magical, fantasy-like paradise. Some people think their regurgitation of other peoples words & borrowed wisdom, Alan Watts for example, has a quality of originality & freshness. http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=912871122&start=1 RICHARD: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=912873366 http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=912873646 http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=912873857
(...) RESPONDENT: ... if you had a shred of honesty, integrity or decency, you would not have removed with link intact, what I had written in the email you were replying to here. RICHARD: I will spell it out simply and sequentially: 1. The e-mail at that link (which you have now provided twice) is dated October 29, 2003 11:31 PST. RESPONDENT: And that is the link where you provided encouragement when I decided to give actualism and you a shot. RICHARD: Yet nowhere at that link * RICHARD: 2. The e-mail at the other link you provided further above (where you first wrote about the event in question) is dated November 02, 2003 05:44 PST. RESPONDENT: And so? RICHARD: And so there is no way you could have been [quote] ‘only given encouragement by Richard’ [endquote] for that event four days before you first wrote about it. RESPONDENT: I mistakenly linked my reply to your encouragement ... RICHARD: In which case you can now correct that mistake by pointing your co-respondent to the link where you say I only gave you encouragement for that event. RESPONDENT: ... so shoot me. RICHARD: I would rather see you now point your co-respondent to the link where you say I only gave you encouragement for that event. * RICHARD: 3. There is no way you could have been [quote] ‘only given encouragement by Richard’ [endquote] for that event four days before you first wrote about it. RESPONDENT: Your encouragement was in reply to this link which was sent Oct 29, 2003 04:33 PST [http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=908926432]. RICHARD: Nowhere at that link do you write anything at all about the event in question. RESPONDENT: And you replied 5 hours later at Oct 29, 2003 11:31 PST. RICHARD: Nowhere in that reply * RICHARD: 4. You were asked by your co-respondent if you have any evidence that Richard cannot walk his own talk. RESPONDENT: Your interactions continue to be all the evidence that anyone needs ... RICHARD: This is the essence of what your co-respondent wrote to you (from further above):
Now, whilst I cannot speak for your co-respondent, there is nothing in that response of theirs which even remotely suggests my interactions are all the evidence they need ... on the contrary, they specifically ask if you have any ‘evidence’ other than my interactions (as in their ‘how he writes’ phrasing) and all you provided was an elaborate hall of mirrors. This is an apt place to again re-post the following:
That rare burst of honesty from you was over two years ago and not once since then has any of what you have had to say – none whatsoever – about an actual freedom from the human condition has been correct either. How you can even begin to think you can expose same * RESPONDENT: Richard wrote: his standard bullshit <... snipped ....> RICHARD: I have re-inserted my latest response (above) in its entirety as the reason why you
characterised it as [quote] ‘his standard bullshit’ [endquote] is plain to see ... to wit: factual evidence plays no part in
the world of the one who prepares the way/ makes the path straight RESPONDENT: I won’t bother replying to the utter nonsense you spin, twist, distort, confabulate, fritter away your time & bandwidth on. RICHARD: Possible translation: ‘I won’t bother replying as I cannot point No. 110 to the link, which is central to my argument that Richard cannot walk his own talk, because I made the whole thing up’. RESPONDENT: I will not go back like some internet detective and unwind all the twists, lies and distortions you have constructed in this ongoing hall of mirrors you are constructing ... RICHARD: Possible translation: ‘I will not go back like some internet detective as I cannot point No. 110 to the link, which is central to my argument that Richard cannot walk his own talk, because I made the whole thing up’. RESPONDENT: ... all in an effort to win over the newbies like some Jehovah’s Witness proselytiser. RICHARD: Possible translation: ‘Curses, foiled again in my efforts as a voice in the wilderness to win over the newbies to the man I like’.
(...) RESPONDENT: I’ve presented and backed up with links all the necessary facts ... RICHARD: As you have neither presented nor backed up with a link the necessary fact which is central to your argument, that Richard cannot walk his own talk, that is an outright fabrication. RESPONDENT: ... [I’ve presented and backed up with links all the necessary facts] that you’ve continued to delete ... RICHARD: As you have neither presented nor backed up with a link the necessary fact which is central to your argument, that Richard cannot walk his own talk, that is another fabrication. RESPONDENT: ... [I’ve presented and backed up with links all the necessary facts that you’ve continued to delete] as you carve out yet one more hollow fixed victory ... RICHARD: As you have neither presented nor backed up with a link the necessary fact which is central to your argument, that Richard cannot walk his own talk, that is again a fabrication. RESPONDENT: ... [I’ve presented and backed up with links all the necessary facts that you’ve continued to delete as you carve out yet one more hollow fixed victory] to place in your self-edited, mis-re-presented archives ... RICHARD: As you have neither presented nor backed up with a link the necessary fact which is central to your argument, that Richard cannot walk his own talk, that is two more fabrications. RESPONDENT: ... [I’ve presented and backed up with links all the necessary facts that you’ve continued to delete as you carve out yet one more hollow fixed victory to place in your self-edited, mis-re-presented archives] of cheap points ... RICHARD: As you have neither presented nor backed up with a link the necessary fact which is central to your argument, that Richard cannot walk his own talk, that is yet again a fabrication. RESPONDENT: ... [I’ve presented and backed up with links all the necessary facts that you’ve continued to delete as you carve out yet one more hollow fixed victory to place in your self-edited, mis-re-presented archives of cheap points], hollow victories ... RICHARD: As you have neither presented nor backed up with a link the necessary fact which is central to your argument, that Richard cannot walk his own talk, that is yet again another fabrication. RESPONDENT: ... [I’ve presented and backed up with links all the necessary facts that you’ve continued to delete as you carve out yet one more hollow fixed victory to place in your self-edited, mis-re-presented archives of cheap points, hollow victories], lies ... RICHARD: As you have neither presented nor backed up with a link the necessary fact which is central to your argument, that Richard cannot walk his own talk, that is even yet again another fabrication. RESPONDENT: ... [I’ve presented and backed up with links all the necessary facts that you’ve continued to delete as you carve out yet one more hollow fixed victory to place in your self-edited, mis-re-presented archives of cheap points, hollow victories, lies] & distortions. RICHARD: As you have neither presented nor backed up with a link the necessary fact which is central to your argument, that Richard cannot walk his own talk, that is once more a fabrication. As nine fabrications in one sentence renders any sensible, rational and reasonable discussion null and void I will spell it out in no uncertain terms:
Put succinctly: as the flesh and blood body writing these words is not, repeat not, that fanciful identity which you somehow created thirty months or so ago, and whom you have assiduously nurtured ever since, then what you are obsessed by is a fictitious entity entirely of your own making and nourishment ... a fantastical persona who has no existence outside of your imaginative/ intuitive facility.
RESPONDENT: I’ve presented and backed up with links all the necessary facts ... RICHARD: As you have neither presented nor backed up with a link the necessary fact which is central to your argument, that Richard cannot walk his own talk, that is an outright fabrication. RESPONDENT: ... [I’ve presented and backed up with links all the necessary facts] that you’ve continued to delete ... RICHARD: As you have neither presented nor backed up with a link the necessary fact which is central to your argument, that Richard cannot walk his own talk, that is another fabrication. RESPONDENT: ... [I’ve presented and backed up with links all the necessary facts that you’ve continued to delete] as you carve out yet one more hollow fixed victory ... RICHARD: As you have neither presented nor backed up with a link the necessary fact which is central to your argument, that Richard cannot walk his own talk, that is again a fabrication. RESPONDENT: ... [I’ve presented and backed up with links all the necessary facts that you’ve continued to delete as you carve out yet one more hollow fixed victory] to place in your self-edited, mis-re-presented archives ... RICHARD: As you have neither presented nor backed up with a link the necessary fact which is central to your argument, that Richard cannot walk his own talk, that is two more fabrications. RESPONDENT: ... [I’ve presented and backed up with links all the necessary facts that you’ve continued to delete as you carve out yet one more hollow fixed victory to place in your self-edited, mis-re-presented archives] of cheap points ... RICHARD: As you have neither presented nor backed up with a link the necessary fact which is central to your argument, that Richard cannot walk his own talk, that is yet again a fabrication. RESPONDENT: ... [I’ve presented and backed up with links all the necessary facts that you’ve continued to delete as you carve out yet one more hollow fixed victory to place in your self-edited, mis-re-presented archives of cheap points], hollow victories ... RICHARD: As you have neither presented nor backed up with a link the necessary fact which is central to your argument, that Richard cannot walk his own talk, that is yet again another fabrication. RESPONDENT: ... [I’ve presented and backed up with links all the necessary facts that you’ve continued to delete as you carve out yet one more hollow fixed victory to place in your self-edited, mis-re-presented archives of cheap points, hollow victories], lies ... RICHARD: As you have neither presented nor backed up with a link the necessary fact which is central to your argument, that Richard cannot walk his own talk, that is even yet again another fabrication. RESPONDENT: ... [I’ve presented and backed up with links all the necessary facts that you’ve continued to delete as you carve out yet one more hollow fixed victory to place in your self-edited, mis-re-presented archives of cheap points, hollow victories, lies] & distortions. RICHARD: As you have neither presented nor backed up with a link the necessary fact which is central to your argument, that Richard cannot walk his own talk, that is once more a fabrication. As nine fabrications in one sentence renders any sensible, rational and reasonable discussion null and void I will spell it out in no uncertain terms: 1. You have not pointed your co-respondent to the link which is central to your argument, where you say I only gave you encouragement for an event you first wrote about on November 02, 2003 05:44 PST (four days after the date at the link which you provided twice), for the very simple reason that no such e-mail exists. (...) RESPONDENT: It is most interesting that one who claims ‘the utter security or an absolute safety the likes of which is inconceivable/ incomprehensible and unimaginable/ unbelievable’, finds it necessary to alter ... RICHARD: As you cannot point your co-respondent to the link which is central to your argument (where you say Richard only gave you encouragement for an event you first wrote about on November 02, 2003 05:44 PST), for the very simple reason no such e-mail exists, that is an outright fabrication. RESPONDENT: ... [It is most interesting that one who claims ‘the utter security or an absolute safety the likes of which is inconceivable/ incomprehensible and unimaginable/ unbelievable’, finds it necessary to alter], distort ... RICHARD: As you cannot point your co-respondent to the link which is central to your argument (where you say Richard only gave you encouragement for an event you first wrote about on November 02, 2003 05:44 PST), for the very simple reason no such e-mail exists, that is another fabrication. RESPONDENT: ... [It is most interesting that one who claims ‘the utter security or an absolute safety the likes of which is inconceivable/ incomprehensible and unimaginable/ unbelievable’, finds it necessary to alter, distort], misrepresent ... RICHARD: As you cannot point your co-respondent to the link which is central to your argument (where you say Richard only gave you encouragement for an event you first wrote about on November 02, 2003 05:44 PST), for the very simple reason no such e-mail exists, that is again a fabrication. RESPONDENT: ... [It is most interesting that one who claims ‘the utter security or an absolute safety the likes of which is inconceivable/ incomprehensible and unimaginable/ unbelievable’, finds it necessary to alter, distort, misrepresent] and read into other peoples words things which simply are not there ... RICHARD: As you cannot point your co-respondent to the link which is central to your argument (where you say Richard only gave you encouragement for an event you first wrote about on November 02, 2003 05:44 PST), for the very simple reason no such e-mail exists, that is yet again a fabrication. RESPONDENT: ... [It is most interesting that one who claims ‘the utter security or an absolute safety the likes of which is inconceivable/ incomprehensible and unimaginable/ unbelievable’, finds it necessary to alter, distort, misrepresent and read into other peoples words things which simply are not there] and to defend this utter security or absolute safety, the likes of which is inconceivable/ incomprehensible and unimaginable/ unbelievable, by accusing his fellow human of fabrication ... RICHARD: As you cannot point your co-respondent to the link which is central to your argument (where you say Richard only gave you encouragement for an event you first wrote about on November 02, 2003 05:44 PST), for the very simple reason no such e-mail exists, that is yet again another fabrication. RESPONDENT: ... [It is most interesting that one who claims ‘the utter security or an absolute safety the likes of which is inconceivable/ incomprehensible and unimaginable/ unbelievable’, finds it necessary to alter, distort misrepresent and read into other peoples words, things which simply are not there and to defend this utter security or absolute safety, the likes of which is inconceivable/ incomprehensible and unimaginable/ unbelievable, by accusing his fellow human of fabrication] when the evidence of your responses lies below and has already been presented. RICHARD: As you cannot point your co-respondent to the link which is central to your argument (where you say Richard only gave you encouragement for an event you first wrote about on November 02, 2003 05:44 PST), for the very simple reason no such e-mail exists, that is once more a fabrication. As is everything else in your 737-word/ 15-paragraph/ 7-links confabulated response
RESPONDENT: ... Richard, who insists he has no feelings or emotions, behaves as anyone else with emotions & feelings ... else he would not act & react as he does ... he cannot walk his own talk. CO-RESPONDENT: I have seen the stupidity of getting offended by insults or other words for a long time, which gives me the intent to see how I react to what is said. I haven’t seen any reply that suggests emotions. I’ve seen stern and hard-hitting points and some sharp words helpful to get through to the respondent. How he writes is not going to show either way whether he has emotions. If he had them and was lying about them, it would be very easy to write without showing emotional reaction. I’m very interested to hear if you have any other ‘evidence’ that he cannot walk his own talk. If I’m learning about total crap, please show me. RESPONDENT: When for a moment there, I decided to give actualism a shot ... RICHARD: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=908926432 RESPONDENT: ... [When for a moment there, I decided to give actualism a shot], I had what for all intents & purposes was a PCE as described by actualism definitions & examples of a PCE. RICHARD: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=909048009 RESPONDENT: ... that was not an example of my PCE ... RICHARD: This is what I was going by:
Then you went on to say, with words to the effect, that it was in my self-interest someone new to actualism had some success with the actualism method and reports/ descriptions/ explanations but now that you are voicing your displeasure with me it is in my self-interest to declare that it was not a PCE after all – two and a half years after the fact – and that if this is not ‘total crap’ you do not know what is. RESPONDENT: If you had a shred of honesty, a shred of integrity & a shred of decency, you would have pointed Respondent to this link, which is where I mentioned my ‘PCE’, which you currently & conveniently revised to not a PCE, 2 1/2 years after the fact: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?sort=&mid=908952727. RICHARD: If you have a shred of honesty, a shred of integrity, and a shred of decency, you will now point your co-respondent to the link where I only gave you encouragement, because it was in my self-interest that someone new to actualism had some success with the actualism method and reports/ descriptions/ explanations, for what you describe as being, to all intents and purposes, a PCE as described by definitions and examples of same on The Actual Freedom Trust web site. RESPONDENT: No, if you had a shred of honesty, integrity or decency, you would not have removed with link intact, what I had written in the email you were replying to here. RICHARD: I will spell it out simply and sequentially: 1. The e-mail at that link (which you have now provided twice) is dated October 29, 2003 11:31 PST. RESPONDENT: And that is the link where you provided encouragement when I decided to give actualism and you a shot. RICHARD: Yet nowhere at that link * RICHARD: 2. The e-mail at the other link you provided further above (where you first wrote about the event in question) is dated November 02, 2003 05:44 PST. RESPONDENT: And so? RICHARD: And so there is no way you could have been [quote] ‘only given encouragement by Richard’ [endquote] for that event four days before you first wrote about it. RESPONDENT: I mistakenly linked my reply to your encouragement ... RICHARD: In which case you can now correct that mistake by pointing your co-respondent to the link where you say I only gave you encouragement for that event. RESPONDENT: ... so shoot me. RICHARD: I would rather see you now point your co-respondent to the link where you say I only gave you encouragement for that event. * RICHARD: 3. There is no way you could have been [quote] ‘only given encouragement by Richard’ [endquote] for that event four days before you first wrote about it. RESPONDENT: Your encouragement was in reply to this link which was sent Oct 29, 2003 04:33 PST [http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=908926432]. RICHARD: Nowhere at that link RESPONDENT: And you replied 5 hours later at Oct 29, 2003 11:31 PST. RICHARD: Nowhere in that reply * RICHARD: 4. You were asked by your co-respondent if you have any evidence that Richard cannot walk his own talk. RESPONDENT: Your interactions continue to be all the evidence that anyone needs ... RICHARD: This is the essence of what your co-respondent wrote to you (from further above):
Now, whilst I cannot speak for your co-respondent, there is nothing in that response of theirs which even remotely suggests my interactions are all the evidence they need ... on the contrary, they specifically ask if you have any ‘evidence’ other than my interactions (as in their ‘how he writes’ phrasing) and all you provided was an elaborate hall of mirrors. This is an apt place to again re-post the following:
That rare burst of honesty from you was over two years ago and not once since then has any of what you have
had to say – none whatsoever – about an actual freedom from the human condition has been correct either. How you can even
begin to think you can expose same with fabrications/ confabulations simply defies commonsense. * RESPONDENT: Richard wrote: his standard bullshit <... snipped ....> RICHARD: I have re-inserted my latest response (above) in its entirety as the reason why you
characterised it as [quote] ‘his standard bullshit’ [endquote] is plain to see ... to wit: factual evidence plays no part in
the world of the one who prepares the way/ makes the path straight for the man that one likes. RESPONDENT: I won’t bother replying to the utter nonsense you spin, twist, distort, confabulate, fritter away your time & bandwidth on. RICHARD: Possible translation: ‘I won’t bother replying as I cannot point Respondent to the link, which is central to my argument that Richard cannot walk his own talk, because I made the whole thing up’. RESPONDENT: I will not go back like some internet detective and unwind all the twists, lies and distortions you have constructed in this ongoing hall of mirrors you are constructing ... RICHARD: Possible translation: ‘I will not go back like some internet detective as I cannot point Respondent to the link, which is central to my argument that Richard cannot walk his own talk, because I made the whole thing up’. RESPONDENT: ... all in an effort to win over the newbies like some Jehovah’s Witness proselytiser. RICHARD: Possible translation: ‘Curses, foiled again in my efforts as a voice in the wilderness to win over the newbies to the man I like’. * RESPONDENT: I’ve presented and backed up with links all the necessary facts ... RICHARD: As you have neither presented nor backed up with a link the necessary fact which is central to your argument, that Richard cannot walk his own talk, that is an outright fabrication. RESPONDENT: ... [I’ve presented and backed up with links all the necessary facts] that you’ve continued to delete ... RICHARD: As you have neither presented nor backed up with a link the necessary fact which is central to your argument, that Richard cannot walk his own talk, that is another fabrication. RESPONDENT: ... [I’ve presented and backed up with links all the necessary facts that you’ve continued to delete] as you carve out yet one more hollow fixed victory ... RICHARD: As you have neither presented nor backed up with a link the necessary fact which is central to your argument, that Richard cannot walk his own talk, that is again a fabrication. RESPONDENT: ... [I’ve presented and backed up with links all the necessary facts that you’ve continued to delete as you carve out yet one more hollow fixed victory] to place in your self-edited, mis-re-presented archives ... RICHARD: As you have neither presented nor backed up with a link the necessary fact which is central to your argument, that Richard cannot walk his own talk, that is two more fabrications. RESPONDENT: ... [I’ve presented and backed up with links all the necessary facts that you’ve continued to delete as you carve out yet one more hollow fixed victory to place in your self-edited, mis-re-presented archives] of cheap points ... RICHARD: As you have neither presented nor backed up with a link the necessary fact which is central to your argument, that Richard cannot walk his own talk, that is yet again a fabrication. RESPONDENT: ... [I’ve presented and backed up with links all the necessary facts that you’ve continued to delete as you carve out yet one more hollow fixed victory to place in your self-edited, mis-re-presented archives of cheap points], hollow victories ... RICHARD: As you have neither presented nor backed up with a link the necessary fact which is central to your argument, that Richard cannot walk his own talk, that is yet again another fabrication. RESPONDENT: ... [I’ve presented and backed up with links all the necessary facts that you’ve continued to delete as you carve out yet one more hollow fixed victory to place in your self-edited, mis-re-presented archives of cheap points, hollow victories], lies ... RICHARD: As you have neither presented nor backed up with a link the necessary fact which is central to your argument, that Richard cannot walk his own talk, that is even yet again another fabrication. RESPONDENT: ... [I’ve presented and backed up with links all the necessary facts that you’ve continued to delete as you carve out yet one more hollow fixed victory to place in your self-edited, mis-re-presented archives of cheap points, hollow victories, lies] & distortions. RICHARD: As you have neither presented nor backed up with a link the necessary fact which is central to your argument, that Richard cannot walk his own talk, that is once more a fabrication. As nine fabrications in one sentence renders any sensible, rational and reasonable discussion null and void I will spell it out in no uncertain terms: 1. You have not pointed your co-respondent to the link which is central to your argument, where you say I only gave you encouragement for an event you first wrote about on November 02, 2003 05:44 PST (four days after the date at the link which you provided twice), for the very simple reason that no such e-mail exists. * RESPONDENT: It is most interesting that one who claims ‘the utter security or an absolute safety the likes of which is inconceivable/ incomprehensible and unimaginable/ unbelievable’, finds it necessary to alter ... RICHARD: As you cannot point your co-respondent to the link which is central to your argument (where you say Richard only gave you encouragement for an event you first wrote about on November 02, 2003 05:44 PST), for the very simple reason no such e-mail exists, that is an outright fabrication. RESPONDENT: ... [It is most interesting that one who claims ‘the utter security or an absolute safety the likes of which is inconceivable/ incomprehensible and unimaginable/ unbelievable’, finds it necessary to alter], distort ... RICHARD: As you cannot point your co-respondent to the link which is central to your argument (where you say Richard only gave you encouragement for an event you first wrote about on November 02, 2003 05:44 PST), for the very simple reason no such e-mail exists, that is another fabrication. RESPONDENT: ... [It is most interesting that one who claims ‘the utter security or an absolute safety the likes of which is inconceivable/ incomprehensible and unimaginable/ unbelievable’, finds it necessary to alter, distort], misrepresent ... RICHARD: As you cannot point your co-respondent to the link which is central to your argument (where you say Richard only gave you encouragement for an event you first wrote about on November 02, 2003 05:44 PST), for the very simple reason no such e-mail exists, that is again a fabrication. RESPONDENT: ... [It is most interesting that one who claims ‘the utter security or an absolute safety the likes of which is inconceivable/ incomprehensible and unimaginable/ unbelievable’, finds it necessary to alter, distort, misrepresent] and read into other peoples words things which simply are not there ... RICHARD: As you cannot point your co-respondent to the link which is central to your argument (where you say Richard only gave you encouragement for an event you first wrote about on November 02, 2003 05:44 PST), for the very simple reason no such e-mail exists, that is yet again a fabrication. RESPONDENT: ... [It is most interesting that one who claims ‘the utter security or an absolute safety the likes of which is inconceivable/ incomprehensible and unimaginable/ unbelievable’, finds it necessary to alter, distort, misrepresent and read into other peoples words things which simply are not there] and to defend this utter security or absolute safety, the likes of which is inconceivable/ incomprehensible and unimaginable/ unbelievable, by accusing his fellow human of fabrication ... RICHARD: As you cannot point your co-respondent to the link which is central to your argument (where you say Richard only gave you encouragement for an event you first wrote about on November 02, 2003 05:44 PST), for the very simple reason no such e-mail exists, that is yet again another fabrication. RESPONDENT: ... [It is most interesting that one who claims ‘the utter security or an absolute safety the likes of which is inconceivable/ incomprehensible and unimaginable/ unbelievable’, finds it necessary to alter, distort misrepresent and read into other peoples words, things which simply are not there and to defend this utter security or absolute safety, the likes of which is inconceivable/ incomprehensible and unimaginable/ unbelievable, by accusing his fellow human of fabrication] when the evidence of your responses lies below and has already been presented. RICHARD: As you cannot point your co-respondent to the link which is central to your argument (where
you say Richard only gave you encouragement for an event you first wrote about on November 02, 2003 05:44 PST), for the very
simple reason no such e-mail exists, that is once more a fabrication. As is everything else in your 737-word/ 15-paragraph/
7-links confabulated response. RESPONDENT: ... [Your] help was in response to my ‘change of heart’ not my ‘it-wasn’t-a-PCE-2 1/2 years-after-the-fact’. RICHARD: Okay ... and I appreciate that you acknowledge this. I have no further questions.
(...) RESPONDENT: ... [Your] help was in response to my ‘change of heart’ not my ‘it-wasn’t-a-PCE-2 1/2 years-after-the-fact’. RICHARD: Okay ... and I appreciate that you acknowledge this. I have no further questions. RESPONDENT: I see you have decided to cut your losses & run as you revert to your standard evasive tricks & stock phrases. RICHARD: Here it is spelled-out sequentially:
As all of what you provided (in response to your co-respondent’s request for evidence that Richard cannot walk his own talk) has amply demonstrated that Richard does indeed walk his talk your 4,303 word contribution to this mailing list, over seven e-mails, has been most appreciated. And just so that be not taken as a facetious comment the following should be self-explanatory:
(...) RESPONDENT: ... [Your] help was in response to my ‘change of heart’ not my ‘it-wasn’t-a-PCE-2 1/2 years-after-the-fact’. RICHARD: Okay ... and I appreciate that you acknowledge this. I have no further questions. RESPONDENT: I see you have decided to cut your losses & run as you revert to your standard evasive tricks & stock phrases. RICHARD: Here it is spelled-out sequentially ... RESPONDENT: That is how YOU spell it out ... RICHARD: As that is the way it happened it is indeed the way I spell it out. RESPONDENT: ... but of course, you have left out your bevy of lies, fabrications, selective editing & so forth, that I have pointed out several times now. RICHARD: What I have left out is everything extraneous which you have seen fit to introduce as a deflection away from what this thread is about (your response to being asked by your co-respondent for evidence to support your assertion that Richard cannot walk his own talk) as there is no way such sophomoric diversionary tactics are ever going to work on me. RESPONDENT: You not only cannot own up to these malicious fabrications, you do not even address them; in lieu of attacking the irrelevant loop-hole you are glomming onto like a dog a bone thinking there is some blood to be extracted from it. RICHARD: The following is what you wrote, at 04:43 on May 06, 2006 PDT, in response to being asked by your co-respondent, at 03:34 on May 04, 2006 PDT, for evidence to support your assertion that Richard cannot walk his own talk (in its original un-edited format):
As you were specifically asked for evidence to support your assertion that Richard cannot walk his own talk then your unsolicited inclusion of Peter and Vineeto in your response is an extraneity ... therefore, in effect, this is what the evidence you were asked for looks like when all reference to them is stripped-out:
Of course, as you now fully acknowledge, you were never given any encouragement by Richard for the event you first wrote about on November 02, 2003 05:44 PST but for having a change of heart four days earlier (October 29, 2003 11:31 PST) ... therefore the evidence you were asked for, to support your assertion that Richard cannot walk his own talk, looks something like this:
As I have never said it was not a change of heart the evidence you were asked for, to support your assertion that Richard cannot walk his own talk, looks something like this:
Now it is not, of course, in my self-interest at all ... therefore, the evidence you were asked for, to support your assertion that Richard cannot walk his own talk, looks something like this:
As there is no way that being given encouragement by Richard for that change of heart could possibly be [quote] ‘total crap’ [endquote] the evidence you were asked for, to support your assertion that Richard cannot walk his own talk, looks something like this:
(...) RESPONDENT: ... [Your] help was in response to my ‘change of heart’ not my ‘it-wasn’t-a-PCE-2 1/2 years-after-the-fact’. RICHARD: Okay ... and I appreciate that you acknowledge this. I have no further questions. RESPONDENT: I see you have decided to cut your losses & run as you revert to your standard evasive tricks & stock phrases. RICHARD: Here it is spelled-out sequentially ... RESPONDENT: That is how YOU spell it out ... RICHARD: As that is the way it happened it is indeed the way I spell it out. RESPONDENT: Well thanks for demonstrating how your mind works. That’s the way it happened between your ears only. RICHARD: Here is point No. 1 of that 5-point spelling-out:
Now, you can say that is [quote] ‘the way it happened between your ears only’ [endquote] until the cows come home yet it is, not surprisingly, the way it did indeed happen ... to wit: at 03:34 on May 04, 2006 PDT you were indeed asked by your co-respondent for evidence to support your assertion that Richard cannot walk his own talk. Here is point No. 2 of that 5-point spelling-out:
Now, you can say that is [quote] ‘the way it happened between your ears only’ [endquote] until the moon turns blue yet it is, not surprisingly, the way it did indeed happen ... to wit: at 04:43 on May 06, 2006 PDT you did indeed respond by saying (albeit in your typical hall-of-mirrors fashion) that, when for a moment there you decided to give actualism a shot, you were only given encouragement by Richard for an event you first wrote about on November 02, 2003 05:44 PST, for an alleged reason it was in his self-interest a new student of his had some success with actualism, but now that you are voicing your displeasure with him it is allegedly in his self-interest to declare – two and a half years after the fact – that it was not a pure consciousness experience (PCE) after all’ [endquote]. Here is point No. 3 of that 5-point spelling-out:
Now, you can say that is [quote] ‘the way it happened between your ears only’ [endquote] until some judgement day yet it is, not surprisingly, the way it did indeed happen ... to wit: you have indeed not been able to provide a link to the e-mail which is central to your argument (where you say Richard only gave you encouragement for that event) for the very simple reason no such e-mail exists. Here is point No. 4 of that 5-point spelling-out:
Now, you can say that is [quote] ‘the way it happened between your ears only’ [endquote] until the sky falls on your head yet it is, not surprisingly, the way it did indeed happen ... to wit: you indeed wrote seven e-mails all told, totalling 4,303 words, before you would acknowledge that you were never given any encouragement by Richard for that event but for having a change of heart four days earlier (October 29, 2003 11:31 PST). Here is point No. 5 of that 5-point spelling-out:
Now, you can say that is [quote] ‘the way it happened between your ears only’ [endquote] until you go purple in the face yet it is, not surprisingly, the way it did indeed happen ... to wit: Richard not only did indeed not give you any encouragement for that event he also did indeed not encourage you for what you classify as being [quote] ‘an example of the highly sought after brain stem event’ [endquote] fourteen days later (November 16, 2003 04:49 PST) either. * RESPONDENT: ... [That is how YOU spell it out] but of course, you have left out your bevy of lies, fabrications, selective editing & so forth, that I have pointed out several times now. RICHARD: What I have left out is everything extraneous which you have seen fit to introduce as a deflection away from what this thread is about (your response to being asked by your co-respondent for evidence to support your assertion that Richard cannot walk his own talk) as there is no way such sophomoric diversionary tactics are ever going to work on me. RESPONDENT: What you have left out are your deflections ... RICHARD: I have stayed consistent to what this thread is about ... to wit: your response to being asked by your co-respondent for evidence to support your assertion that Richard cannot walk his own talk. RESPONDENT: ... [What you have left out are your deflections], aka your lies & fabrications ... RICHARD: As I have not deflected, lied, or fabricated anything your self-acknowledged ploy of throwing
another’s words back at them RESPONDENT: ... [What you have left out are your deflections, aka your lies & fabrications], in an attempt to virtually destroy me ... RICHARD: What I would suggest is that you read my response to the quote you provided, with that very response snipped-out, a mere sentence later in this very paragraph I am responding to. Here it is, in context, for your convenience:
Has it never occurred to you to consider just why I would go to some considerable endeavour and expense to
get her latter-day words blackguarding actualism/ bad-mouthing me
(...) RESPONDENT: ... [Your] help was in response to my ‘change of heart’ not my ‘it-wasn’t-a-PCE-2 1/2 years-after-the-fact’. RICHARD: Okay ... and I appreciate that you acknowledge this. I have no further questions. RESPONDENT: I see you have decided to cut your losses & run as you revert to your standard evasive tricks & stock phrases. RICHARD: Here it is spelled-out sequentially ... RESPONDENT: That is how YOU spell it out ... RICHARD: As that is the way it happened it is indeed the way I spell it out. RESPONDENT: Well thanks for demonstrating how your mind works. That’s the way it happened between your ears only. RICHARD: Here is point No. 1 of that 5-point spelling-out ... RESPONDENT: Here is Richard the Control Freak vainly attempting to direct the conversation yet again ... RICHARD: Possible translation: I don’t want this conversation to be about the way the discussion actually happened. RESPONDENT: ... you are a colossal bore ... RICHARD: Possible translation: factually-based conversations are boring RESPONDENT: ... [Here is Richard ] still ignoring & glossing over all his fabrications & debating tricks & tactics ... RICHARD: Possible translation: even though my diversionary tactics haven’t worked on Richard so far surely they will this time around. RESPONDENT: ... in order to score more cheap points ... RICHARD: Possible translation: I’ll just give my ploy of throwing his words back at him another go. RESPONDENT: ... and enter yet one more hollow victory ... RICHARD: Possible translation: if I keep on insisting that what is central to my argument is just one shred of semantics, a pathetically minor technicality, another pedantic loop-hole, that little chicken bone, the irrelevant loop-hole, I can go on pretending that all this egg on my face is really the latest thing in beauty-treatment. RESPONDENT: ... into his carefully Control-freaked & edited archives for posterity. RICHARD: Possible translation: I will never, ever, admit that his factually-based conversations are
not edited before archiving
RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust:
1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
