|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 87
Continued from Mailing List ‘AF’: No. 48 RESPONDENT No 53: Can you comment on this, Richard? From Mystique (Mistake) of Enlightenment: Pt.1: UG. www.well.com/user/jct/mystiq1.htm [snip four paragraph quote about stigmata mysticus]. RICHARD: I have far better things to do with my time ... such as sitting with my feet up on the coffee-table watching comedies on television. RESPONDENT: Woohoo :-) now that’s a bitch slap if ever I saw one hehehe :-) RICHARD: I do not know what a ‘bitch slap’ is but, given you also say ‘crotchety’ further below, I can piece together a likely comprehension:
As I did nothing like any of the above your spectator-style hooting-hilarity has been generated by your own
transference-whimsy RESPONDENT: Well the reason I don’t bother dialoguing here (or slothfully sitting with my feet up on the coffee table) is because there are far more exciting, productive and exquisitely sensate things to do with my time whilst observing the nature of being human. RICHARD: Apart from insinuating there be sloth (lacklustre sluggishness as contrasted to animating productivity) in an actual freedom from the human condition your attempt at promoting the time-honoured habit of people-watching into being a fruitful enterprise by claiming it to be ‘exquisitely sensate’ would be a lot more convincing if you were to share, not only your observations on the nature of being human, but in which way such observance has affected your own (biologically-inherited) human nature. In other words, it is one thing to observe human nature and another thing for there to be a resultant action which is beneficial not only for oneself but all humankind. RESPONDENT: And the only reason I do visit here is to read and appreciate the bright stimulating characters ... RICHARD: Possible translation: to read and appreciate the projections of like-minded commentators. RESPONDENT: ... who occasionally grace this space, many of whom would have been a privilege to know personally. But Richard you are not one of them. RICHARD: Indeed I am not ... this is very perspicacious of you. RESPONDENT: You say you have no presence or being, but your posts do. that of a crotchety, mean old musty, living deadman. RICHARD: And thus do you end as you began ... reading all manner of things
RESPONDENT: Here is an excerpt ‘of excerpts’ posted to this list a few years ago. Add them to his impassioned ‘Ohs!’ ... RICHARD: I copy-pasted <Ohs!> into the search-engine of my computer (and then removed the plural ‘s’ of course) and sent it through everything I have ever written ... only to have it return nil hits: is it possible that you deliberately added the exclamation mark so that it appears to be, as you say, impassioned? RESPONDENT: ...[Add them to his impassioned ‘Ohs!’] and ‘... umms ...’ ... RICHARD: I have explained several times before why I use ‘... um ...’ and there is nothing impassioned about it at all. For just one instance:
RESPONDENT: ... [Add them to his impassioned ‘Ohs!’ and ‘... umms ...’] and ‘just why on earths’ ... RICHARD: I copy-pasted <just why on earths> into the search-engine of my computer (and then removed the plural ‘s’ of course) and sent it through everything I have ever written ... only to have it return nil hits: howsoever as I do make use of the common expression ‘why on earth ...’ (26 times since 1997 according to the search-engine) I will take this opportunity to point out that it used as an intensive (grammatically, to give emphasis) and not to express passion. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: ... [Add them to his impassioned ‘Ohs!’ and ‘... umms ...’and ‘just why on earths’] and its as obvious the guy has a major communication problem. RICHARD: I see that you have tried this line of approach on before:
RESPONDENT: (...) They are nothing the vain self protective attacks of an ignorant fool. RICHARD: As your conclusion is drawn from doctored quotes (more on this below) and imputed passion/emotion it has no substance. RESPONDENT (re-posting another co-respondent’s un-referenced quotes): [Correspondent]: ‘Here’s a load of Richards antisocial antagonistic correspondence. They are chock full of, belittlement, unfriendliness, unkindness, arrogance, callous debunking, cynicism, sarcasm, provocation, feigned exasperation, downright unpleasantness, haughty indignation, phoney gratitude eg. ‘thank you for giving me permission!’ exaggerated exclamations ... RICHARD: Here is where this quote comes from:
I have highlighted the relevant words and, as is patently obvious, there is nary an exclamation mark to be seen ... is it possible that the person, whose quotes you have seen fit to re-post without checking for yourself their accuracy, has deliberately added the exclamation mark so that it appears to be, as they say, an exaggerated exclamation? There are many other instances of this doctoring in those un-referenced quotes from another co-respondent ... for example: [quote] ‘Good grief!’ [endquote] is nowhere to be found ... and [quote] ‘Now I ask you!’ [endquote] is nowhere to be found and [quote] ‘pathetic attempts at ridicule!’ [endquote] is nowhere to be found ... and [quote] ‘Indeed not!’ [endquote] is nowhere to be found ... and [quote] ‘I have not!’ [endquote] is nowhere to be found ... and [quote] ‘What on earth!’ [endquote] is nowhere to be found ... and [quote] ‘I ask you!’ [endquote] is nowhere to be found ... and [quote] ‘This is just crazy!’ [endquote] is nowhere to be found. RESPONDENT (quoting another co-respondent’s un-referenced quotes): ... ‘What you are going to come up with next in your on going objection!’ Here is where that quote came from: (Richard, List B, No. 36, 25 September 1999) Thus not only is there nary an exclamation mark to be seen but my words ‘I do so look forward to ...’ are missing, the lower-case ‘w’ has been capitalised, the hyphen has been taken out of ‘on-going’, and my words ‘... to being happy and harmless’ are also absent. Apart from the obvious doctoring (inserting an exclamation mark where there was none) it is the pointless doctoring – especially the rather odd removal of a hyphen – which indicates, perhaps, something somewhat out-of-kilter about such a person’s state of mind. RESPONDENT (quoting another co-respondent’s un-referenced quotes): ... [‘Here’s a load of Richards] denial, feigned resignation, fault finding, phoney politeness eg. ‘If I may point out’ ... RICHARD: As to just how that phrase can be construed as faked civility has got me beat. RESPONDENT (quoting another co-respondent’s un-referenced quotes): ... [‘Here’s a load of Richards] ridicule, personal attack, browbeating and above all a total obsession with the word YOU. Richard wrote: ‘Some other correspondent came out with similar twaddle and this is just as silly’ [endquote]. RICHARD: Here is where this quote comes from:
Apart from editing out the parenthesised subject, without any indication of having done so, the selection of this quote indicates just what had got up the nose of the person, whose quotes you have seen fit to re-post without checking for yourself their accuracy, such as to mount their (doctored and misrepresented) case against me ... to wit: it was Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s wisdom which was being characterised as the ‘twaddle’ being referred to as similar. And there is no prize for guessing ... (1) what kind of mailing list it was ... and (2) whom the person concerned was an aficionado of. ‘Nuff said?
RESPONDENT: Here is an excerpt ‘of excerpts’ posted to this list a few years ago. Add them to his impassioned ‘Ohs!’ ... RICHARD: I copy-pasted <Ohs!> into the search-engine of my computer (and then removed the plural ‘s’ of course) and sent it through everything I have ever written ... only to have it return nil hits. RESPONDENT: Key this into Google then Mr BS artist: Oh, site:www.actualfreedom.com.au. RICHARD: Okay ... and here is the very first hit:
If you could explain how that is me being ‘impassioned’ I would be most interested. * RICHARD: ... is it possible that you deliberately added the exclamation mark so that it appears to be, as you say, impassioned? RESPONDENT: The word ‘Oh’ is a PASSIONATE exclamation in itself, how dumb can you get. RICHARD: Not dumb enough, obviously, as it has not escaped my attention that you are not addressing the question as asked ... to wit: is it possible that you deliberately added the exclamation mark so that it appears to be, as you say, impassioned? RESPONDENT: Check out any dictionary: ‘used to express strong emotions’. RICHARD: That is not the only definition ... for example, the (further above) instance – ‘oh, you do not mean bruised emotionally’ – is an expression of mild surprise, not of strong emotion. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Since it would be senseless for you to use it to address your correspondents doubly, or call them a zero, then one can only deduce that its being used to convey an ‘attitude’ in the dictionary sense of: a state of mind or a feeling, since no text book would use it to ‘simply state a fact’. RICHARD: If I may point out? My e-mails are a correspondence, an exchange with a fellow human being (as in a conversation, a discussion, and so on) and not a text book ... and the attitude (if that is the right word) in the further above instance, for example, is an attitude of surprise, not an attitude of a feeling (as in a strong emotion). * RESPONDENT: ...[Add them to his impassioned ‘Ohs!’] and ‘... umms ...’ ... RICHARD: I have explained several times before why I use ‘... um ...’ and there is nothing impassioned about it at all. RESPONDENT: The context and manner in which you use your Ohs and umms smack of attitude ... and an immature and insolent one at that. RICHARD: Even if (note ‘if’) my use of ‘... um ...’ were to smack of attitude the question is whether it smacks of an impassioned one or not. * RICHARD: For just one instance: [Richard]: ‘... my use of the common human expression <um> in this paragraph is
nothing more than expressing a searching for a word (as in <er> or <er-um> or any other variation) as I was unsure as to whether to
write <humour> or <irony> or <satire> given that you have previously explained what your modus operandi is using, at the very
least, any and all of those words. RESPONDENT: Liar. Since when have you been at a loss for words ... time and time again. RICHARD: I have occasion to search for an appropriate word on a daily basis ... I quite often hesitate, saying ‘um’, until it pops into place. RESPONDENT: In fact ... I’m not going to waste my precious time replying to the rest of your pretentious denials. RICHARD: I see ... you re-present some (doctored and/or misrepresented) un-referenced quotes, making certain allegations, and when I reply, setting the record straight, your response is to classify same as ‘pretentious denials’ – whilst saying you are not going to waste your time replying – yet then go on to find it strange I never refuted them previously. RESPONDENT: Suffice to say that you are well aware from which mailing list your ‘dirt’ was excerpted and strangely never refuted by you, neither there nor here, when they were first posted two years ago. RICHARD: Of course I am well aware which mailing list it was ... and the excerpts were, in fact, first posted five (5) years ago. Viz.:
I responded on Sunday October 02 1999 AEST
And I responded to that post on Monday October 03 1999 AEST Or, put simply, no critique of what the critic has to say, please. * RESPONDENT: Yet ‘now’ when you are well aware that the old archives of the Listening-l mailing list have not been downloaded to their new site you want proof! RICHARD: As I have my own records I do not require any proof. RESPONDENT: How cunning, tut tut. RICHARD: As your conclusion is based upon a false surmise it has no substance. RESPONDENT: But since I’m not here, as you are, to impress or save face ... RICHARD: I see ... you re-present some (doctored and/or misrepresented) un-referenced quotes, making certain allegations, and when I reply, setting the record straight, your response is to classify same as ‘to impress or save face’ – whilst saying you are not here to do that – yet then go on to suggest leaving it to anyone interested to verify for themselves that the excerpts were indeed precisely copied and pasted. RESPONDENT: ... [But since I’m not here, as you are, to impress or save face], lets just leave it to anyone who’s interested in contacting the members still on that Krishnamurti list if they wish confirmation that the excerpts were precisely copied and pasted from their own correspondences with you. Or wait until the old archives are reinstated. Nevertheless anyone can see they could not be more obviously your dirty work. RICHARD: This may be an apt moment to point out that, as there is not all that much difference between saving face and having egg on it, I have always found it pays to be well-informed before mounting a critique. Moreover, the more that certain persons doctor and/or misrepresent my words and/or read things into them which are simply not there, and so forth, in order to find fault the more they demonstrate that what I do report/describe/explain is indeed actual/factual and, thus, irrefutable (else why resort to it). As such a sterling PR service for actualism is being provided ... gratis.
RESPONDENT: Here is an excerpt ‘of excerpts’ posted to this list a few years ago. Add them to his impassioned ‘Ohs!’ ... RICHARD: I copy-pasted <Ohs!> into the search-engine of my computer (and then removed the plural ‘s’ of course) and sent it through everything I have ever written ... only to have it return nil hits: is it possible that you deliberately added the exclamation mark so that it appears to be, as you say, impassioned [just as the person, whose quotes you have seen fit to re-post without checking for yourself their accuracy, deliberately added the exclamation marks so that it appears to be, as they say, exaggerated exclamations]? (...) I have always found it pays to be well-informed before mounting a critique. Moreover, the more that certain persons doctor and/or misrepresent my words and/or read things into them which are simply not there, and so forth, in order to find fault the more they demonstrate that what I do report/ describe/ explain is indeed actual/factual and, thus, irrefutable (else why resort to it). RESPONDENT No. 53: You would know about doctoring and/or misrepresenting another’s words, anyone’s words and/or reading things into them which are simply not there, and so forth, in order place yourself above anyone and everyone, and thus the more you demonstrate that you are actually and factually a bag of hot air meant to keep that massive ego and deluded soul of yours afloat and alive. RICHARD: Not so ... the reason why I do know about the doctoring of and/or the misrepresenting of another’s words, anyone’s words, and/or the reading of things into them which are simply not there, and so forth, is because that is what certain persons do, in order to find fault, to my report/description/explanation of life here in this actual world. I may be a lot of things ... but I am not silly. RESPONDENT: How vain and deluded you are. RICHARD: As there is nary a trace of either vanity or delusion anywhere to be found in this flesh and blood body I am unable to look at what you see when you read my words. RESPONDENT: Look how cunningly you try to divert your readers from the essence of a question by running off mid sentence and making a ridiculous brouhaha out of one or two (besides the point) words. RICHARD: There were three to-the-point (else why post them) words, actually, and even though the snipped-for-brevity text at the top of this page might make it seem to have been cut-off in mid-sentence, in the original they were reinserted (in squared brackets) so as to provide continuity. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Diversion tactics that stand out like dogs balls these days. RICHARD: Since when has responding to each and every allegation, in detail, with referenced quotes as evidence, and with dictionary definitions as appropriate to lend clarity to communication, been diversionary devices? RESPONDENT: Yet try as you might to bury your inadequate answers in a tangled quagmire of dictionary definitions (copied and pasted like some proud 5 year old) the fact remains there is no actual/factual evidence to your claims at all. RICHARD: What you see as a ‘tangled quagmire’ of dictionary definitions is revealed to be two (2) references only upon closer inspection. Viz.:
And:
RESPONDENT: All you manage to prove (time and time again ad nauseam) is that simple clarity has escaped you. RICHARD: If your words, in this post and previous, are a demonstration of what ‘simple clarity’ means to you then I am well-pleased that it has escaped me. RESPONDENT: [All you manage to prove is] That you are woefully incompetent, vain and arrogant and sorely lacking in basic communication skills. RICHARD: Again, if your words, in this post and previous, are a demonstration of what ‘basic communication skills’ means to you then I am well-pleased to be lacking in them. RESPONDENT: All of which that belies your every word. RICHARD: There is no question that what you see when you read my words does indeed belie every word you read. RESPONDENT: You are nothing but a clown, albeit an entertaining one. RICHARD: That would be in keeping with what you see when you read my words. RESPONDENT: Thanks, but the world is full of clowns like you. RICHARD: ‘Tis not me that warrants your appreciation ... as it is what you see, when you read my words, which is entertaining for you then some hard-earned self-congratulation is what is being called for.
RICHARD: (...) the human species has been doing its thing for at least 50,000 years or so – no essential difference has been discerned between the Cro-Magnon human and Modern-Day human – and may very well continue to do its thing for, say, another 50,000 years or so ... it matters not, in what has been described as ‘the vast scheme of things’ or ‘the big picture’, and so on, whether none, one or many peoples become actually free from the human condition (this planet, indeed the entire solar system, is going to cease to exist in its current form about 4.5 billion years from now). All these words – yours, mine, and others (all the dictionaries, encyclopaedias, scholarly tomes and so on) – will perish and all the monuments, all the statues, all the tombstones, all the sacred sites, all the carefully conserved/carefully restored memorabilia, will vanish as if they had never existed ... nothing will remain of any human endeavour (including yours truly). Nothing at all ... nil, zero, zilch. Which means that nothing really matters in the long run and, as nothing really does matter (in this ultimate sense) it is simply not possible to take life seriously ... sincerely, yes, but seriously? No way ... life is much too much fun to be serious! RESPONDENT No. 53: [snip link to a news item about a recent seismic sea-wave] Yeah fun, fun, fun for every one. Let’s bury the dead .... such fun! Let’s dig out our dead ... fun, fun, fun! Perhaps we should hand them Richard’s method as they bury their loved ones. Perhaps in addition to food, clothing, building materials, etc, we should give them one copy of Richard’s Journal on how to have fun whilst losing your life and your loved ones lives. RICHARD: Death is a fact of life/of being born – over 54,000,000 people die each year – and yet, just because of a topical news item, all-of-a-sudden life is not fun? Further to the point, were your platitudinous ‘loved ones’ comments anywhere to be seen yesterday, when maybe 148,000 of those 54+ million people died, leaving x-number of peoples burying their dead ... let alone the day before, when another 148,000 or so people died (and the day before that, and the one before that one, and so on, and so on)? Nope, nowhere to be seen at all ... which indicates that this opportunistic e-mail of yours is, perhaps, nothing more than a cynical cashing-in on the (newsworthy) misfortune of others for the sake of your own promotion. RESPONDENT: Your inability to discern the difference in impact between individuals dying daily of old age, accident, disease, or ignorance, and this on-going horror as millions of human beings try to deal with a mass tragedy on a scale never experienced in our lifetimes reveals you to be a callous and mentally dissociated sick human being. RICHARD: Hmm ... another opportunist exploiting the current-time suffering of others, eh? Before this bandwagon lurches any further along the bandwidth trail I will draw your attention to the following:
As it seems as if amateur diagnoses, determined solely by e-mail, might just become the order of the day may I suggest that you leave the psychologising to the psychologists and the psychiatry to the psychiatrists? For your information: even though there is no ‘horror’ here in this actual world I am not oblivious to the impact such calamities can have upon the denizens of the real-world ... and I have written about this before. For just one example:
And in regards to ‘on a scale never experienced in our lifetimes’ I only need to point to the events of 1939-45 where the estimates of the number of dead are of such an unknowable magnitude as to be couched in terms of ‘give-or-take’ 10,000,000 human beings either way of an estimated 55,000,000 ... with a further estimate of at least 11,000,000 people, at the war’s end, being classified as DP’s (displaced persons). Or, for a non-war instance: the number of citizens dead at the hands of autocratic governments in the last 100 years (via genocide, politicide, mass murder, extra-judicial executions, starvation/privation, and so forth) is statistically estimated to be a probable 174,000,000 peoples ... as a mid-estimate formed from the possible low-range/high range estimates. And the scale of that mid-range figure (174,000,000) is not only hard to digest it is difficult to properly comprehend just
how many persons – men, women, and children – this is. For example, if all of those citizens killed by governments, in the twentieth century
alone, were to have inhabited a country of their own then it would be the world’s sixth most populous nation Or, for another illustration, if one were to sit on a chair in a room and have that amount of people come in one door, go by at a walking pace without stopping, and exit through another door, for 24 hours a day 365 days a year, it would take about six years for all to pass by. Put graphically: assuming that the average height of these murdered citizens was little more than five feet, because of the many children killed, their corpses would encircle this planet about four times. Whereas the battle-field cadavers (38,000,000) for the same period would barely girdle the earth once
RESPONDENT: Your inability to discern the difference in impact between individuals dying daily of old age, accident, disease, or ignorance, and this on-going horror [a recent seismic sea-wave] as millions of human beings try to deal with a mass tragedy on a scale never experienced in our lifetimes reveals you to be a callous and mentally dissociated sick human being. RICHARD: Hmm ... another opportunist exploiting the current-time suffering of others, eh? Before this bandwagon lurches any further along the bandwidth trail I will draw your attention to the following: (snip). RESPONDENT: You’re too sick for words man. RICHARD: Apparently not, as it turns out, for the following is some of the 112 words you managed to gasp out a scant few hours later:
Plus only a day later you were busy complimenting your running mate for their insincere posturing on this very topic:
And refusing to have a two-way discussion on the subject of actually caring (a subject you both raised, earlier on, and later saw fit to write 562 words about) only half a day after that:
Yet here is what your ‘actual’ caring looks like in practice:
‘Tis no wonder you do not want the matter discussed ... you truly have nothing of substance to say. Speaking of which ... have you recently spent some time under the old oak tree in the courtyard of the BonTon
RESPONDENT: Your inability to discern the difference in impact between individuals dying daily of old age, accident, disease, or ignorance, and this on-going horror [a recent seismic sea-wave] as millions of human beings try to deal with a mass tragedy on a scale never experienced in our lifetimes reveals you to be a callous and mentally dissociated sick human being. RICHARD: Hmm ... another opportunist exploiting the current-time suffering of others, eh? Before this bandwagon lurches any further along the bandwidth trail I will draw your attention to the following: (snip). (...) RICHARD:... here is what your ‘actual’ caring looks like in practice:
‘Tis no wonder you do not want the matter discussed ... you truly have nothing of substance to say. Speaking of which ... have you recently spent some time under the old oak tree in the courtyard of the BonTon café? RESPONDENT: Now this is too bazaar! In a post questioning your ability to discern the difference between this horrific catastrophe and daily deaths ... RICHARD: If I may point out? It was not a post ‘questioning’ my ability it was a post (erroneously) concluding such lack of ability ... and, furthermore, as you have made it clear that you will not discuss such issues, on a discussion mailing list, it is a closed-mind conclusion at that. For instance: I made it abundantly clear that I am not oblivious to the affective impact such calamities can have upon feeling beings, and that neither am I emotionally callous/mentally dissociating, yet what was your response? None other than this:
Whereas, of course, it is because you truly have nothing of substance to say. RESPONDENT: ... [In a post questioning your ability to discern the difference between this horrific catastrophe and daily deaths] you ask about a cafe??? RICHARD: No, I specifically wrote ‘speaking of which [not wanting to discuss the matter/truly having nothing of
substance to say] have you recently spent some time under the old oak tree in the courtyard of the BonTon café’ ... as in spending some time
with a witty companion Thus, despite your protestations to the contrary, there is nothing at all bizarre about that. RESPONDENT: Not only does it prove you are brain damaged ... RICHARD: It does nothing of the sort ... and, I might add, that ‘brain damaged’ furphy, which was raised on that other mailing list you are familiar with several years ago, was demonstrated at the very time of it arising to be just that (a furphy). RESPONDENT: ... [Not only does it prove you are brain damaged] and have no perspective ... RICHARD: Hmm ... and would the following be a real-life example of this ‘perspective’ you are talking of? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: ... [Not only does it prove you are brain damaged and have no perspective] you are also completely insane! RICHARD: It does not prove I am ‘completely insane’ (aka having a severe and incurable psychotic mental disorder) ... what does prove that is the findings of the psychiatric profession (which categorises individual peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, as insanity ... albeit using the ‘severe and incurable psychotic mental disorder’ terminology). Why you are wasting bandwidth trying to put together a dilettantish diagnosis that I am a basket case, when professionals in the field have already established just that, has got me beat. I can only guess that it might be a case of deflecting scrutiny away from your desperate need to, perhaps somewhat ghoulishly, feel near to others currently suffering the loss of kith and kin and hearth and home (for example).
RESPONDENT: Your inability to discern the difference in impact between individuals dying daily of old age, accident, disease, or ignorance, and this on-going horror [a recent seismic sea-wave] as millions of human beings try to deal with a mass tragedy on a scale never experienced in our lifetimes reveals you to be a callous and mentally dissociated sick human being. RICHARD: Hmm ... another opportunist exploiting the current-time suffering of others, eh? Before this bandwagon lurches any further along the bandwidth trail I will draw your attention to the following: (snip). (...) RICHARD: ... here is what your ‘actual’ caring looks like in practice:
‘Tis no wonder you do not want the matter discussed ... you truly have nothing of substance to say. Speaking of which ... have you recently spent some time under the old oak tree in the courtyard of the BonTon café? RESPONDENT: Now this is too bazaar! In a post questioning your ability to discern the difference between this horrific catastrophe and daily deaths ... RICHARD: If I may point out? It was not a post ‘questioning’ my ability it was a post (erroneously) concluding such lack of ability ... and, furthermore, as you have made it clear that you will not discuss such issues, on a discussion mailing list, it is a closed-mind conclusion at that. For instance: I made it abundantly clear that I am not oblivious to the affective impact such calamities can have upon feeling beings, and that neither am I emotionally callous/mentally dissociating, yet what was your response? None other than this: [Respondent]: ‘You’re too sick for words man’. [endquote]. Whereas, of course, it is because you truly have nothing of substance to say. RESPONDENT: ... [n a post questioning your ability to discern the difference between this horrific catastrophe and daily deaths] you ask about a cafe ??? RICHARD: No, I specifically wrote ‘speaking of which [not wanting to discuss the matter/ truly having nothing of substance to say] have you recently spent some time under the old oak tree in the courtyard of the BonTon café’ ... as in spending some time with a witty companion, for instance, rather than discussing the issues you raise via the relative safety/ anonymity of the internet yet decline to follow-through on. Thus, despite your protestations to the contrary, there is nothing at all bizarre about that. RESPONDENT: First you ask this pathologically irrelevant question ... RICHARD: It is not irrelevant – let alone pathologically so – as I have already made clear (just above) when you first queried it ... if anything is irrelevant it is that ‘pathologically irrelevant’ ascription of yours to what is actually a very straight-forward question. RESPONDENT: [First you ask this pathologically irrelevant question] as though you know me ... RICHARD: No, I do not know you personally ... I know of
you RESPONDENT: [First you ask this pathologically irrelevant question as though you know me] in a post entitled ‘Mass vs Daily Deaths’ ... RICHARD: My question was in a post which, instead of responding to what I wrote under the original title (‘Re: Feelings’), you retitled as ‘Mass vs Daily Deaths’ when you chose to join into the exchange I was having with another co-respondent, who had (unsuccessfully) tried to change it into ‘RE jamais vu’, just as you have now tried to change it, again, into yet another title ... to wit: ‘Pathological Irrelevancy’. Why you would both want to change that title – ‘Re: Feelings’ – when what both of you are talking about is nothing
other than feelings RESPONDENT: [First you ask this pathologically irrelevant question (as though you know me) in a post entitled ‘Mass vs Daily Deaths’] a response which by the way perfectly illustrated my point ... RICHARD: Au contraire ... as you had no point (a point requires substance) there is no way my very straight-forward question could illustrate anything at all. RESPONDENT: [First you ask this pathologically irrelevant question (as though you know me) in a post entitled ‘Mass vs Daily Deaths’ (a response which by the way perfectly illustrated my point)] wherein I questioned your ability to comprehend let alone actually and ‘actively’ care about your fellow human beings ... RICHARD: You did not ‘question’ anything ... you (closed-mindedly) concluded I was unable to discern any difference in impact between the around-the-clock deaths of over 54,000,000 people each year and [quote] ‘this on-going horror’ [endquote] – a ‘horror’ you magnified into being on a scale which it is not actually on – and never made any mention of whether or not I had the ability to actually/actively care about my fellow human beings. In other words, not only was your first post a beat-up, so too is this one. RESPONDENT: [First you ask this pathologically irrelevant question (as though you know me) in a post entitled ‘Mass vs Daily Deaths’ (a response which by the way perfectly illustrated my point) wherein I questioned your ability to comprehend let alone actually and ‘actively’ care about your fellow human beings] during this unprecedented tragedy ... RICHARD: It is not ‘unprecedented’ ... seismic sea-waves have been occurring for aeons and possibly the most calamitous in recorded history, in terms of it being a (human) tragedy, was in 1703 at Awa, Japan, where more than 100,000 people perished. RESPONDENT: [First you ask this pathologically irrelevant question (as though you know me) in a post entitled ‘Mass vs Daily Deaths’ (a response which by the way perfectly illustrated my point) wherein I questioned your ability to comprehend let alone actually and ‘actively’ care about your fellow human beings during this unprecedented tragedy, but you then follow it up with this equally bazzaar reason for asking (...). RICHARD: Do you see how your ‘but you then ...’ and your ‘this equally bizarre ...’ insinuations lose their impact when all that you wrote before them, in order to justify their use, is rendered null and void? If so, do you now see why I have said that you truly have nothing of substance to say? RESPONDENT: Now I ask you: what the fuck all this is about? RICHARD: As I have already explained, ‘this’ (my very straight-forward question) is about you opting to spend some time with a witty companion, for instance, rather than discuss the issues you raise via the relative safety/ anonymity of the internet yet decline to follow-through on ... as is aptly demonstrated in this e-mail where nothing of what you wrote has any substance whatsoever. Perhaps if I were to spell it out again, now that I have got your attention, you might take notice of it this time around:
If that is now clearly comprehended then the following question of mine, which is what triggered-off your initial reaction, will make sense:
‘Tis such a simple thing, non?
RICHARD: (...) Is it going to take, perhaps, 1,000 posts before you finally ‘get it’? RESPONDENT No. 53: Whether I get it or not, is none of your concern ... (snip). RICHARD: I never said it was ... RESPONDENT: Yes exactly and that’s what No. 53 is showing you. That’s what I am showing you. You have NO concern, therefore your millions of words claiming to ‘actually care’ for your fellow man is rubbish and ... RICHARD: If I may interject (before you go on building an even bigger castle out of sand)? The expression ‘none of
your concern’ is another way of saying ‘none of your business’ and so forth RESPONDENT: ... [and] these juvenile loggerheads you are indulging in only prove all the more. RICHARD: They prove nothing of the sort ... and by way of explanation:
RESPONDENT No. 53: Of course you know what I am actually doing when I write ... (snip). RICHARD: What I know is what I read – nothing else – and after 666 instances of your drivel RESPONDENT: No mistake at all. He has reeled you in hook line and sinker. You fool. RICHARD: The mistake more than a few spiritualists make is to uncritically presume that what I report/describe/explain is but a modern-day variation on spiritual enlightenment/mystical awakenment and, as such, further mistakenly assume it to somehow be beneath me to engage in what you describe in another e-mail as [quote] ‘these juvenile loggerheads’ [endquote]. Nothing could be further from the truth ... for an example:
And another:
There are many more ... but maybe those will do for now.
RICHARD (to Respondent No. 53): 665 e-mails and yet still in denial about what you are doing on this mailing list. If your back-slapping fellow-crusader can clearly see what you are doing in your self-appointed role then why is it you cannot? Viz.:
And just so there is no doubt whatsoever as to what is unifying this righteous cause you have recruited them into joining:
RESPONDENT: He sure does, and what you are up to sure ain’t. RICHARD: As the ‘it’ which Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti knows the at-ness whereof is but a modern-day variation of an
aggrandised solipsism Put succinctly: aggrandised solipsism is nothing other than narcissism writ large.
RESPONDENT: Your inability to discern the difference in impact between individuals dying daily of old age, accident, disease, or ignorance, and this on-going horror [a recent seismic sea-wave] as millions of human beings try to deal with a mass tragedy on a scale never experienced in our lifetimes reveals you to be a callous and mentally dissociated sick human being. RICHARD: Hmm ... another opportunist exploiting the current-time suffering of others, eh? Before this bandwagon lurches any further along the bandwidth trail I will draw your attention to the following: (snip). (...) RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to spell it out again, now that I have got your attention, you might take notice of it this time around: I am not oblivious to the affective impact such calamities (as seismic sea-waves) can have upon feeling beings, and neither am I emotionally callous/ mentally dissociating. If that is now clearly comprehended then the following question of mine, which is what triggered-off your initial reaction, will make sense: [Richard]: ‘Death is a fact of life/ of being born – over 54,000,000 people die each year – and yet, just because of a topical news item [a recent seismic sea-wave], all-of-a-sudden life is not fun?’ [endquote]. ‘Tis such a simple thing, non? RESPONDENT: Your doc was right, you are insane. RICHARD: According to the real-world categorisations I am indeed round the bend – although not for the reasons you ascribe – and as it is the sanity of the real-world (the sanity that occasions incalculable misery and mayhem) which determines insanity I do find it cute that an actual freedom from the human condition – peace-on-earth, in this life-time, as this flesh and blood body – is classified as a severe and incurable psychotic disorder. You are on a hiding to nowhere persisting with this theme.
RICHARD (to Respondent No. 53): ... a computer-count shows that you have posted 651 e-mails to this mailing list since you first subscribed 14 months ago – with 99.99% of them being of a similar self-promotional don’t-listen-to-Richard/do-listen-to-No. 53 vein – yet you have had, and still have, nothing of substance to say. Nothing whatsoever ... doodly-squat. RESPONDENT: www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/diddly-squat. [diddly-squat: n. a small worthless amount]. RICHARD: Whereas what ‘doodly-squat’ refers to is even less than that. For example:
RESPONDENT No. 78: It is sensible not to be wasteful, you suggest otherwise Richard? RICHARD: As to not be wasteful is to be frugal, and as to suggest otherwise is to not advocate frugality, your query might be better addressed to a moralist, an ethicist, or a principlist. RESPONDENT No. 74: I think the question was clear enough. The reply is evasive. I had to read it twice to actually get the grammar straight. RESPONDENT: I had the same problem. RICHARD: It is actually a very simple response ... perhaps if I were to reverse the order of the sentence? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: In fact I’ve been watching Richard’s writing deteriorate over the years. RICHARD: As a professional editor appraised my writing in 1997 RESPONDENT: I’m no English expert but it’s obvious he is sacrificing clarity and ease of reading for a preference in avoiding sentence structure ... for some stupid reason. RICHARD: You may find the following to be of interest, then:
RESPONDENT: His sentences are now so long and convoluted as to make them almost impossible to understand without performing tedious, time wasting, mental acrobatics. RICHARD: As a literary agent assessed my writing in ‘Richard’s Journal’ – written circa 1994-96 – as being ‘hard and long’ I do look askance at your ‘are now’ wording ... especially so as the records show you first wrote to this mailing list 18 months ago. RESPONDENT: His lack of punctuation belies his pure intent to communicate his (so called) experience of the simplicity of this actual world and only shows his on-going fascination for tweaking unnecessary mental activity. RICHARD: What I do find fascinating is that you not only keep on reading what I have to communicate but you also continue to waste both your time and your bandwidth writing your un-informed/ill-considered commentaries when it is patently obvious that they have not, are not having, and never will have, any relevance whatsoever. ‘Tis all much ado about nothing.
RESPONDENT No. 104: In future may I suggest that you ignore/ don’t entertain things that are useless for you and don’t waste ego, I mean time writing verbose responses? RICHARD: There is a handy device on all computer keyboards called the ‘back-space’ key: if, as you say, you did indeed mean to type ‘time’ you could have simply erased the word ‘ego’ with it and got on with your ... um ... your reasoned discussion. RESPONDENT: When questioned as to his use of the word ...um ... defined in the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English as: an interjection; used to express doubt or uncertainty or to fill a pause when hesitating in speaking. Richard replied; ‘my use of the common human expression <um> in this paragraph is nothing more than expressing a searching for a word (as in <er> or <er-um> or any other variation) as I was unsure as to whether to write <humour> or <irony> or <satire>’. This would be an apt moment for Richard to take his own advise and use that handy device on his own computer keyboard called the ‘back-space’ key thus replacing his ...um... with the appropriate word (if, as he says, he was indeed searching for a word) thereby freeing himself of the hypocrisy of advising others what to use to express themselves and say to what they ‘genuinely’ mean, whilst failing to do so himself and instead excreting a doubly dumbed-down load of pretentious uncertainty ... and often. Richards cunning is far from extinct. RICHARD: Richard is saying what he genuinely means: the interjectional ‘um’ (as in expressing doubt or uncertainty) indicates that he is unsure as to whether what follows is the correct or appropriate word/ term to use. Continued on Mailing List ‘D’, No. 5
CORRESPONDENT No. 87 (Part Two) 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 |
