|
Richard’s Correspondence On Mailing List ‘D’ with Correspondent No. 4 (Please make sure java-scripting is enabled in order for the mouse-hover tool-tips to function properly; mouse-hover on the yellow rectangular image to enlarge; left-click on the image to hold).
Continued from Mailing List ‘AF’: No. 60 Re: Few humble words from Justine RESPONDENT No. 37: No. 4, if I remember correctly, you had said in one of your messages that Richard was trying to woo a girl on another continent. If this is correct, would you mind telling who it was? RESPONDENT: No, I’ve resolved to let other people tell their stories – or not – as they see fit. RICHARD: G’day No. 4, As the query you responded to is a conditional question (‘if this *is* correct’), and not a suppositional question (‘if this *were* correct’), then to answer as if the query were the latter is to have given an equivocal answer instead of taking the opportunity to drive the point home that all the made-up stuff about a phantom ‘Richard’ of passionate imagination being both publicly and privately bandied about previously has, of course, no substance whatsoever. Put differently: the content of your sentence (everything which comes after the ‘no’) shows that your negative, referring as it does to not acceding to what is otherwise a (thinly-disguised) request for you to just go ahead and do that very thing which is being enquired about, serves to perpetuate in the mind of the questioner that the made-up stuff does have substance after all ... and that you are merely not going to be doing the telling (for reasons such as you provide) anymore. Here is an example Q&A for that conditional query:
RESPONDENT: My view remains: best find a way to live that doesn’t depend to any extent on what anyone else does, says, is, or claims to be. RICHARD: Why on earth, then, are you even subscribed (in order to be able to read), let alone actively contributing, to
a mailing-list type public forum specifically set-up to discuss a particular way to live (The words ‘entirely new to human experience/ human history’ leave no wriggle-room whatsoever; if it were not for me and, nowadays, a handful of daring pioneers neither this forum you are posting your view which remains to would exist nor any such discussions as take place hereon would be happening). Moreover, even if you were subscribed (in order to read and to contribute) to some non-specific forum then here is an example of your view which remains when expressed in the first-person singular:
Ain’t life grand! Regards, Richard.
Re: Few humble words from Justine RESPONDENT No. 37: No. 4, if I remember correctly, you had said in one of your messages that Richard was trying to woo a girl on another continent. If this is correct, would you mind telling who it was? RESPONDENT: No, I’ve resolved to let other people tell their stories – or not – as they see fit. RICHARD: G’day No. 4, As the query you responded to is a conditional question (‘if this *is* correct’), and not a suppositional question (‘if this *were* correct’), then to answer as if the query were the latter is to have given an equivocal answer instead of taking the opportunity to drive the point home that all the made-up stuff about a phantom ‘Richard’ of passionate imagination being both publicly and privately bandied about previously has, of course, no substance whatsoever. Put differently: the content of your sentence (everything which comes after the ‘no’) shows that your negative, referring as it does to not acceding to what is otherwise a (thinly-disguised) request for you to just go ahead and do that very thing which is being enquired about, serves to perpetuate in the mind of the questioner that the made-up stuff does have substance after all ... and that you are merely not going to be doing the telling (for reasons such as you provide) anymore. Here is an example Q&A for that conditional query:
RESPONDENT: But that kind of answer would not accurately reflect what I think. RICHARD: G’day No. 4, Of course that kind of answer – being as it is in accord with facts and actuality – would not accurately reflect what you [quote] ‘think’ [endquote] ... how could it? RESPONDENT: I said I wouldn’t discuss a particular matter, not that there wasn’t anything to discuss. RICHARD: Aye, I got that the first time around ... thank you for confirming it in plain language, though. RESPONDENT: They’re two are completely different propositions. From my perspective ... RICHARD: I will stop you right there, for the nonce, so as to allow the full import of those three words (‘From my perspective ...’) due time to register. RESPONDENT: [From my perspective], the first is entirely reasonable, the second not at all. RICHARD: Just for the sake of clarity in communication, here are those two propositions of yours again: 1. First proposition (from your perspective: entirely reasonable): ‘I said I wouldn’t discuss a particular matter ...’ 2. Second proposition (from your perspective: not at all reasonable): ‘... not that there wasn’t anything to discuss’. Do you see how those two absolute assertions (absolute as in your ‘entirely’ and your ‘not at all’ wording) rest solely upon what you clearly state is your [quote] ‘perspective’ [endquote]? Just what quality is it, inhering in this ‘perspective’ of yours, which imbues it with such a ... um ... a ‘god-like’ status that absolute assertions take precedence over facts and actuality? RESPONDENT: (So much so that I think there has to be some misunderstanding involved, but I can’t see what it is yet). RICHARD: As there is no such ‘misunderstanding’, there is nothing of that nature yet to see. RESPONDENT: As for ‘the mind of the questioner’ and the possibility of adding ‘grist to the mill’: the situation (of ‘wooing’) that I’m refusing to talk about – or be complicit in any denial of – involved only mature, autonomous, intelligent adults. RICHARD: As there is no such ‘the situation’, there is no one of that nature to be involved. RESPONDENT: Their business. RICHARD: As you chose to make ‘their business’ everyone else’s business – both clandestinely (private
emails) and anonymously (public emails) without first even contacting me Here again is that ‘conditional query’ Q&A example:
‘Tis such a simple thing, non? Regards, Richard.
Re: Few humble words from Justine RICHARD: Just for the sake of clarity in communication, here are those two propositions of yours again: 1. First proposition (from your perspective: entirely reasonable): ‘I said I wouldn’t discuss a particular matter ...’ 2. Second proposition (from your perspective: not at all reasonable): ‘... not that there wasn’t anything to discuss’. Do you see how those two absolute assertions (absolute as in your ‘entirely’ and your ‘not at all’ wording) rest solely upon what you clearly state is your [quote] ‘perspective’ [endquote]? Just what quality is it, inhering in this ‘perspective’ of yours, which imbues it with such a ... um ... a ‘god-like’ status that absolute assertions take precedence over facts and actuality? RESPONDENT: A correspondent asked me if I was prepared to name the person on another continent that I’d said you had ‘wooed’. I declined to give details. You suggested that I should have done more than decline to give details, but to actually assert that there were in fact no such details to talk about. RICHARD: G’day No. 4, No, not [quote] ‘assert’ [endquote] but to simply have told the truth (the facts and actuality of the situation) as in, for instance, the ‘conditional query’ Q&A example already provided. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: So, are you saying...? 1) That you DID NOT write to a person on another continent [...]. RICHARD: What I am saying is not correct is [quote] ‘Richard was trying to woo a girl on another continent’ [endquote]. You were specifically asked if this is correct ... here is the original post in full:
Do you not see your co-respondent prefaces it with ‘if I remember correctly’ and then reiterates that unsurety with ‘If this is correct ...’? RESPONDENT: or... 2) You did, but that doesn’t constitute ‘wooing’ [...]. RICHARD: What I am saying is not correct is [quote] ‘Richard was trying to woo a girl on another continent’ [endquote]. RESPONDENT: or... 3) The now-famous third alternative? RICHARD: Hmm ... smart-aleckry does not become you. RESPONDENT: I just want to be absolutely clear which particular limb you’re going out on here. And why? RICHARD: Golly, coming as it does hot on the heels of your previous witticism that is quite a snippy comment (presumably fuelled by that god-like ‘perspective’), eh? RESPONDENT: And again, for the sake of clarity: I am not in any way suggesting that there is anything wrong with doing what I’ve said in (1) above. That is not the point. Autonomous adults can do as they please. And I’m not making any statements about who might have initiated it either, or to what extent either party might have taken the lead at various times. But if you’re expecting me to flatly deny that such a thing ever happened [...]. RICHARD: While it would make a nice change to be able to say that what I am expecting you to do is simply tell the
truth (the facts and actuality of the situation), it is strikingly obvious that you cannot as, having gone shooting off your mouth without first
even contacting me RESPONDENT: The only matter of ‘perspective’ here is whether that constitutes ‘wooing’ ... which, to my mind, would be a stupid and pointless debate to get into. RICHARD: Whilst I would not use the word woo
Incidentally, when someone informs me (upon me having carefully questioned them whether they had meant ‘meet’, and not ‘join’,
in a previous email) that they intend to join me – and the other actualists – on the MSV Actualis itself there is simply no way I can
understand this, by any stretch of the language, as being rightfully characterised as [quote] ‘the genitor ... in the process of actively
recruiting’ Especially so as you had expressly told me eleven days before (on the second afternoon of your first visit) that she had [quote] ‘a personal interest’ [endquote] in meeting me. Face it, No. 4, you do indeed have a whole lot of explaining to do in regards to your actions. Regards, Richard.
Re: Richard, to be fair.. RICHARD to Andrew: [...]. (Incidentally, note how he begins it all with his ‘I was there when it happened’ stamp
of eye-witness authenticity even though ‘February 2010’ is *not* November/ December 2009). RESPONDENT: You keep repeating this ‘I was there when it happened’ line, taking it out of its immediate context, and juxtaposing it alongside something else entirely, to make it look like I was claiming to be present at something I couldn’t have been present at. Here’s the original context:
*********************** So, not for the first time, you’ve deleted the very words which supplied the immediate context, and you’ve juxtaposed those words alongside something else, implying that I’d claimed to be present at a completely different event, when I had done no such thing. RICHARD: G’day No. 4, The reason why I keep repeating that ‘I was there when it happened’ line (and taking it, as you correctly say, out of its *immediate* context) is because by virtue of them being your very first words – situated within that ‘not sure if that [i.e. hearsay sexual allegations] is the reason that Tom withdrew the sponsorship’/ ‘Tom told me his reasons’ context you put them in – they set in place the stamp of eye-witness authenticity you deliberately create, via interspersing your hearsay text with unreferenced allusions to it all being ‘informed by reliable testimony and observation’ (6th para) and ‘from on-site observation and direct testimony’ (15th para), so as to leave the reader in no doubt as to why that ‘sponsorship’ was withdrawn. Viz.:
If you are going to insist your ‘I was there when it happened’ line refers solely to the very moment of ‘withdrew the sponsorship’ (which is what the word ‘it’, in ‘when it happened’ refers directly back to) then you were *not* there when ‘it’ happened as you were located in the neighbouring domicile, completely oblivious to what was taking place in that regards, and only got to hear about it afterwards. In a word: hearsay. Now, given it was me speaking, I know what the words were which would have reached your ears when I informed Vineeto and Peter that Tom had rung me to say his broker had just advised him there were insufficient funds available, to finance the MSV Actualis, as the company he had a major investment in was in financial difficulty and unable to repay the loan. Here (in full) is your ‘I was there when it happened’ version of those words:
As Tom followed-up on his telephonic notification with an email verification (Cc-ed to both Vineeto and Peter) all three of us are left in no doubt that your ‘I was there when it happened/ Tom told me his reasons’ line is at odds with who was actually there when it happened/ with Tom’s actual reason (singular) in both verbal and written form. Are you saying that Tom lied to three people, of intimate association over many years, about a multi-million dollar company going bankrupt/ going into receivership but told a virtual stranger, of very, very brief acquaintance, the real reasons (plural) he ‘withdrew the sponsorship’ the day before he rang me to say his broker had just advised him there were insufficient funds available? In other words, you knew the ‘sponsorship’ was withdrawn nearly twenty-four hours before we three were told a colossal lie? Regards, Richard. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: The ‘celebration’ was Tom no longer being able to kid himself along that the funds would somehow still become available despite all of us knowing, since early January 2010, that the company was more than likely to go belly-up due to the GFC.
Re: Few humble words from Justine RESPONDENT: Richard, you wrote only yesterday:
No wonder I thought that’s what the issue was. It was, wasn’t it? RICHARD: G’day No. 4, Look, it is this simple: it was about what your co-respondent remembered you as having written in one of your messages. Viz.:
Thus what I am saying is not correct (if I spell it out more fully) in the above is [quote] ‘... you had said in one of your messages that Richard was trying to woo a girl on another continent’ [endquote]. And it is not correct because what you had actually said, in that post being referred to, was in relation to a woman who back then was in New Zealand (which, as you rightly noted in your previous email, is not ‘another continent’). It is not about what the word ‘woo’ means (you could have as easily had written ‘seduce’ or ‘entice’ back then) but to whom your words ‘trying to woo’ referred ... as in, who it was you had in mind when you wrote those words. Maybe it means little to either you or your co-respondent just which woman it is (after all, they are but pawns to the people addicted to the cyber-space ‘Bash Richard/Trash Actualism’ RPG) but for me they are living, breathing human beings whom I know personally, intimately, and if you and your co-respondent are going to zero-in on someone solely for daring to associate with me – with scant, if any, regard for them as persons in their own right – the least you can do is correctly identify your targets. Which is what you had actually done last year, while writing that post being referred to (where the words ‘back into’ do correctly identify who it is), when you were not under the influence of your co-respondent’s (mis)-remembrance. Viz.:
Thus, by having the words ‘trying to woo’ lifted out of their ‘back into’ context (via your co-respondent’s mis-remembrance) you then posted umpteen emails, trying to prove that Richard’s behaviour vis-a-vis a woman on ‘another continent’ constituted ‘wooing’ (as distinct from ‘recruiting’), to the point of reaching back into trite accusations of ‘pedantry’ a la the old Topica-List.
Yet it never was about ‘trying to woo’ per se but, rather, all about ‘back into’ (as distinct from ‘recruiting another’). There is, of course, an ulterior motive involved in latching onto ‘trying to woo’ (as per your co-respondent’s mis-remembrance) as it is impossible to sustain the allegation of ‘recruiting another’ when it becomes evident that she had already recruited herself (and that all Richard had done was to delightedly acquiesce and whole-heartedly support). (Although just how the newly-acquired allegation of ‘trying to woo’ could be sustained regarding a woman who had already
recruited herself has got me beat but, hey, perhaps that is something only a feeling-being throwing a tantrum Regards, Richard.
[No. 4] wrote [in #14256]: Put it on the table
RICHARD: G’day No. 4, The very fact you phrase your query in an absolutist manner – [quote] ‘not ever’ [endquote] – clearly shows you have not been reading my posts. For instance, a couple of weeks ago (in #13846 To summarise what I demonstrated: 1. It is an error in fact, and not of interpretation, to ... um ... to narratise me apprising my third wife (de facto), of the good news about ‘The Floating Convivium Project’ finally going ahead, as [quote] ‘trying to woo ...’ [endquote]. 2. It is an error in fact, and not of interpretation, to narratise me apprising her of this in December 2009 as [quote] ‘actively trying to ...’ [endquote] in February 2010. 3. It is an error in fact, and not of interpretation, to narratise the non-nuclear couple/ non-nuclear living arrangement of ‘The Floating Convivium Project’ as being [quote] ‘back into’ [end quote] that which [quote] ‘she had suspended’ [endquote] ... namely: the nuclear couple association/ the nuclear house-hold living arrangement which had been the situation ever since the ménage à trois association/ living arrangement with Devika had ended. 4. It is an error in fact, and not of interpretation, to narratise the nuclear couple association/ the nuclear house-hold
living arrangement as being suspended because my third wife (de facto) was [quote] ‘trying to decide her future’ [endquote] ... and
especially so as it had already been made public that it was because of an experience, of immaculate perfection, being so wonderful it was
frightening – frightening to the nth degree – such as to result in weird and bizarre behaviour Now, the above summary brings the expose of that part-sentence narrative of yours (in #11349 For instance:
For another instance of an actual intimacy being the primary factor in regards to a live-in association with me in any ménage arrangement: Richard, List D, No. 14a., 9 Nov 2009). And a another instance: Richard, List D, No. 6, 10 November 2009). To add to the summary thus far: 5. It is an error in fact, and not of interpretation, to narratise what I was apprising my third wife (de facto) of as just [quote] ‘a full-time sexual relationship with him’ [endquote] when it is public knowledge that her live-in association with me was initiated by, and primarily based upon, an actual intimacy – and not sex and sexuality – which she described as a closeness which was more intimate than she had ever experienced with her own self. Further to that point: given that you justified the salacious thrust of your entire post (#11349 In short: your narrative is, transparently, a salacious hatchet-job deliberately targeting the baser instincts of your reading
audience and quite evidently is directly instigated by/inspired by those three preceding co-respondents of yours making public similarly salacious
hearsay narratives of a similarly maligning, libelling and defaming nature. (Message 11502) As it is a very long post look for the email sequence starting at the words ‘Look, by way of illustration, I can provide
three concurrent instances ...’ Last, but not at all the least, I am not [quote] ‘the genitor of actual freedom’ [endquote] and the fact you repeat
and thus perpetuate that egoistical propaganda – first promulgated by this forum’s only ((((-: ‘uber-intellectual’ :-)))) criticaster, on
Feb 15, 2012 If you were to read, with both eyes open, what this flesh-and-blood body actually writes you will see how it was clearly stated that this flesh-and-blood body is a genitor of the completely new consciousness (a totally original way of being conscious), for all humankind to avail themselves of which, since Oct 19, 2010, is entirely equitable ... and that, furthermore, how this flesh-and-blood body is thus, nowadays, no longer the *sole* genitor of it. The following is the very first time that word appeared in public, under my name on this forum, solely as an en passant way of referring to what had been the world-wide situation up until then. Viz.:
Of course, that egoic-driven ‘the genitor’ (and ‘o genitor’ and ‘Mr. Genitor’ and so on)
propaganda continued unabated, despite my follow-up clarificatory post to Claudiu on that very topic Viz.:
And to illustrate what I mean by there being no stopping a purblind egoist, once their feeling-fuelled mind has become
fixated, that above clarificatory message (#11273 Viz.:
To add the last item to the summary: 6. It is an error in fact, and not of interpretation, to narratise me as [quote] ‘the genitor of actual freedom’ [endquote] as it was thereby made abundantly clear only 3 days beforehand (Feb 19, 2012) what was meant by me advising my co-respondent 7 weeks prior how I was no longer the sole genitor of the completely new consciousness (a totally original way of being conscious) for all humankind to avail themselves of. RESPONDENT: If you think you can demonstrate that I’ve ever ‘made up’ stuff about you – something that is clearly a matter of fact and not of interpretation – then let’s have it. Put it on the table. RICHARD: Ha ... I do not merely [quote] ‘think’ [endquote] I can demonstrate you have made up stuff about me
– literally, hundreds of instances of made up stuff – as I know I can as I already have on numerous occasions (as demonstrated via that one
example further above from a couple of weeks ago (in #13846 Given that it has taken an entire email to unpack just a part-sentence of yours there is no way I am going to devote the next x-hundred days to composing x-hundred emails (i.e. one a day) in order to demonstrate each and every instance of stuff you have made up about me. Also, given that the bulk of the made up stuff of yours was circulated by you surreptitiously, clandestinely, via private emails I cannot know the extent or range of your perfidy to even begin to assess just how long that would take. (As an aside, on that point, you are probably yet to realise just how stupid [No. 2] made himself look by preaching to me that
I had to ‘apologize in public’ What I will do, however, in my 2nd post in this ‘Put it on the table’ thread, is go through the first email of yours, of that ilk, to appear on this forum (going through your 170+ emails on ‘Dharma Overground’ is something to be put to the side for now) and therein demonstrate, step-by-step, just what is involved in undoing all the damage you have done. After that I will go through the second of your emails of that ilk, to appear on this forum, and similarly – step-by-step
– demonstrate how your actions effectively led to wrecking another’s life (her exact words, in message #10555 At which stage I will pause, to take stock, before continuing on until culminating in what has become known as ‘[No. 4]’s
Historical Statement’ (#11349 Viz.:
* 2nd post to follow in due course (as it takes a while to collect all the quotes, links, URLs, &c., so as to ‘Put it on
the table’ as per your public request to me in #14256 Regards, Richard.
Re: [No. 4] wrote [in #14256]: Put it on the table
RICHARD: [...snip summary of a prior demonstration numbered 1-6...]. RESPONDENT: If you think you can demonstrate that I’ve ever ‘made up’ stuff about you – something that is clearly a matter of fact and not of interpretation – then let’s have it. Put it on the table. RICHARD: Ha ... I do not merely [quote] ‘think’ [endquote] I can demonstrate you have made up stuff about me
– literally, hundreds of instances of made up stuff – as I know I can as I already have on numerous occasions (as demonstrated via that one
example further above from a couple of weeks ago (in #13846 What I will do, however, in my 2nd post in this ‘Put it on the table’ thread, is go through the first email of yours, of that ilk, to appear on this forum (going through your 170+ emails on ‘Dharma Overground’ is something to be put to the side for now) and therein demonstrate, step-by-step, just what is involved in undoing all the damage you have done. After that I will go through the second of your emails of that ilk, to appear on this forum, and similarly – step-by-step
– demonstrate how your actions effectively led to wrecking another’s life (her exact words, in message #10555 At which stage I will pause, to take stock, before continuing on until culminating in what has become known as ‘[No. 4]’s
Historical Statement’ (#11349 2nd post to follow in due course (as it takes a while to collect all the quotes, links, URLs, &c., so as to ‘Put it on
the table’ as per your public request to me in #14256 RESPONDENT: It’ll be interesting to go through these things and ascertain just how much of what you’re claiming ... RICHARD: G’day No. 4, I have stopped your opening sentence right there because it is pointless to proceed were you to go on doing what you have just done there (try to make out that my reports of myself are not reports but are, instead, merely claims). For instance, were I to provide a report that my height is six-foot-two, my weight is twelve-stone-six, my eye-colour is blue and my head-hair is grey, there is simply no way I am going to even begin a discussion with someone whose response is to tell me that it will be ‘interesting’ to go through those things and ascertain just how much of what I am *claiming* is indeed fact and how much is interpretation, evaluation, etc., and to explore the ways in which differing viewpoints depend on who is telling the story and why, and whose assumptions about reality prevail, and how those assumptions are expressions of and instruments of ... (wait for it) ... of power. Have you gone barking mad? RESPONDENT: ... and what I’m claiming, is indeed fact and how much is interpretation, evaluation, etc, and to explore the ways in which differing viewpoints depend on who’s telling the story and why, and whose assumptions about reality prevail, and how those assumptions are expressions of and instruments of power. (Whenever I’ve made assertions that aren’t consistent with the facts, I’ll happily acknowledge it). RICHARD: Well now, please start by happily acknowledging those summaries of my prior demonstration, numbered 1-6, from a couple of weeks ago. By doing so the way is then clear to proceed with my 2nd post, of which 3/4 is now ready to follow in due course, so as to ‘Put
it on the table’ as per your public request to me in #14256 RESPONDENT: I know you have a busy month ahead with at least three visitors coming to see you, so I won’t divert too much from attention that in the immediate future. RICHARD: Once you start happily acknowledging those summaries of my prior demonstration, numbered 1-6 from a couple of weeks ago, and the way is thus cleared to proceed with my 2nd post, this will be all over and done with well before they even arrive. I would estimate 2-3 days, max. RESPONDENT: Beyond that, a discussion of this kind is long overdue, so I’m looking forward to getting down to it. RICHARD: Ha ... discussions of that kind have already taken place – on The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list Regards, Richard.
Re: Power, dominance hierarchy, control of narrative CLAUDIU: [...] The problem is that everybody has a different way they’d like Richard to behave. Since it’d be impossible to do that and boring/ undesirable to be under people’s power like that anyway he behaves exactly like he wants (while automatically not being motivates by malice or sorrow) and has fun doing it, which is all the more so abrasive to those who don’t get it and want him to behave their way. RESPONDENT: For me it’s less about wanting Richard to behave in a certain way, and more about understanding the true nature of his condition and the viability of striving for it. It’s closely related to what you’re saying, I guess, but not quite the same. RESPONDENT: Ultimately for me it comes down to this: Does Richard exemplify a better way to be human? And the answer is: In some ways yes, in other ways no. RESPONDENT No. 38: Hey, [No. 4] To be honest, I’m a little lost in all these issues, and your post gives me the opportunity to understand your point. Could you please list those specific ways in which Richard exemplify that he does not represent a better way to be human? Thanks in advance, RESPONDENT: Hi [No. 38]. I’m not surprised one could be ‘a little lost’ in what must look a bizarre and surreal telenovela that’s been running for years, and you find yourself tuning in at Episode 12, Season 3, trying to make sense of it all. (And the plot is sure to take a few even more strange twists and turns before this is done). I’ll try to give you a clear answer to where I’m coming from on this ‘better way to be human’ thing when I respond to Claudiu’s message #14371 (some time this week for sure). RESPONDENT: Some background reading on one aspect of it... In that thread, I am ‘John Wilde’ and [No. 2] is ‘Johannes Bugenhagen’. We used aliases because we didn’t want to give away the identity of our informant. If we had posted under our familiar names, it would have been immediately obvious to Richard & co. RICHARD: G’day no. 4, Pleased to see you confirming that ‘Johannes Bugenhagen’ is one of [No. 2]’s sock-puppets. Are you similarly going to confirm whom ‘George Campbell’ Regards, Richard.
Re: Power, dominance hierarchy, control of narrative RICK: And did she ever say why we can’t ever say her name publicly? Can you please explain that because I’m beginning to feel a bit ridiculous. RESPONDENT: The whole situation, which people here write off as ‘melodrama’ to be enjoyed with pop-corn, was incredibly painful, confusing and embarrassing to her. It cost her a great deal of familial strife and exposed her to scorn and ridicule from colleagues. She does not want her name associated with Richard in any way. That you don’t *know* her reasons was/is not a good reason not to respect the fact that she *has* reasons. RICK: Well, do you not think it hypocritical for her to demand people to respect her demands for anonymity and privacy when she was utterly relentless in revealing incredibly private details about Richard and Vineeto that had absolutely no bearing on the exposition of his character (e.g. Richard’s mother and father’s full names)? RESPONDENT: Of course I do. But I also tend to (usually) agree with the old saying... two wrongs don’t make a right. RICK: Fair enough. But in this case, she’s been completely out of line and has exposed signs of extreme emotional imbalance and disturbance ... and I don’t think even you would disagree that she is/has been very emotionally disturbed. RESPONDENT: Which is cause, and which is effect? Two narratives again: 1) Person goes through a tumultuous, confusing and distressing experience that leaves them
emotionally upset, and acts that way. How well do you know her? RICHARD: G’day [No. 4], Hmm ... and just how well do *you* know her? Before you answer – and given that you tell your co-respondent, further above, that the whole situation was ‘incredibly painful, confusing and embarrassing to her’ and that it ‘exposed her to scorn and ridicule from colleagues’ – I will draw your attention to the following exchange from only ten days ago. Viz.:
Again I will ask you – given that you tell your co-respondent, further above, that the whole situation was ‘incredibly painful, confusing and embarrassing to her’ and that it ‘exposed her to scorn and ridicule from colleagues’ – how well do *you* know her? Before you answer – and given you also tell your co-respondent, further above, that the whole situation ‘cost her a great deal of familial strife’ – I will draw your attention to the following excerpt from a message of yours, addressed to me, written a little over six months ago. Viz.:
Simply because you say you have been ‘shown a photo’, rather than ‘sent a photo’ (i.e. either by surface mail or electronically), it occurs to me to ask whom it was you were ‘shown’ such a photograph by – presumably either a black-and-white or colour image on photographic paper – and when? The reason I ask is because – given you tell your co-respondent, further above, that the whole situation ‘cost her a great deal of familial strife’ – it could be that you have met in-person. Yet, if you have, it then makes no sense to say ‘a great deal of familial strife’ as I have not only met her father on several occasions – as well as receiving an appreciative communication by telephone (whereupon he became quite emotional, for a retired High Court Judge, to the point of becoming so emotionally choked-up all he could say, over and again, was ‘God bless you, Richard; God bless you, Richard’) – he also gladsomely handed me a solid silver bar (99.99% pure) and a One Rupee silver coin at a small luncheon party he presided over in a high-class restaurant. So, I ask you: just how well do *you* know her – and her family – such as to be telling your co-respondent those things? Regards, Richard. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: Regarding your (quite erroneous) ‘tripping off his nut on mushrooms’ depiction please be advised that when the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago ingested psylocibin one evening in mid-1980 – on the advice of an (erstwhile) associate under the (misguided) impression it was similar to tetrahydrocannabinol (only much stronger) – no cameras were present, no photos were taken, no photographic image whatsoever exists of that event. Furthermore, to depict that event in your ‘rave-party’ type phrasing (‘tripping off his nut on mushrooms’) is yet further evidence you cannot stop making up stuff about me even when it is (presumably) complimentary in your mind.
Re: Power, dominance hierarchy, control of narrative RESPONDENT: The whole situation, which people here write off as ‘melodrama’ to be enjoyed with pop-corn, was incredibly painful, confusing and embarrassing to her. It cost her a great deal of familial strife and exposed her to scorn and ridicule from colleagues. She does not want her name associated with Richard in any way. That you don’t *know* her reasons was/is not a good reason not to respect the fact that she *has* reasons. [...] RESPONDENT: How well do you know her? RICHARD: Hmm ... and just how well do *you* know her? Before you answer – and given that you tell your co-respondent, further above, that the whole situation was ‘incredibly painful, confusing and embarrassing to her’ and that it ‘exposed her to scorn and ridicule from colleagues’ – I will draw your attention to the following exchange from only ten days ago. Viz.: [...] Again I will ask you – given that you tell your co-respondent, further above, that the whole situation was ‘incredibly painful, confusing and embarrassing to her’ and that it ‘exposed her to scorn and ridicule from colleagues’ – how well do *you* know her? Before you answer – and given you also tell your co-respondent, further above, that the whole situation ‘cost her a great deal of familial strife’ – I will draw your attention to the following excerpt from a message of yours, addressed to me, written a little over six months ago. Viz.:
Simply because you say you have been ‘shown a photo’, rather than ‘sent a photo’ (i.e. either by surface mail or electronically), it occurs to me to ask whom it was you were ‘shown’ such a photograph by – presumably either a black-and-white or colour image on photographic paper – and when? The reason I ask is because – given you tell your co-respondent, further above, that the whole situation ‘cost her a great deal of familial strife’ – it could be that you have met in-person. Yet, if you have, it then makes no sense to say ‘a great deal of familial strife’ as I have not only met her father on several occasions – as well as receiving an appreciative communication by telephone (whereupon he became quite emotional, for a retired High Court Judge, to the point of becoming so emotionally choked-up all he could say, over and again, was ‘God bless you, Richard; God bless you, Richard’) – he also gladsomely handed me a solid silver bar (99.99% pure) and a One Rupee silver coin at a small luncheon party he presided over in a high-class restaurant. So, I ask you: just how well do *you* know her – and her family – such as to be telling your co-respondent those things? Regards, Richard. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: Regarding your (quite erroneous) ‘tripping off his nut on mushrooms’ depiction please be advised that when the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago ingested psylocibin one evening in mid-1980 – on the advice of an (erstwhile) associate under the (misguided) impression it was similar to tetrahydrocannabinol (only much stronger) – no cameras were present, no photos were taken, no photographic image whatsoever exists of that event. Furthermore, to depict that event in your ‘rave-party’ type phrasing (‘tripping off his nut on mushrooms’) is yet further evidence you cannot stop making up stuff about me even when it is (presumably) complimentary in your mind. RESPONDENT: No, once again, I’ve done no such thing. The photo (file name: ‘Richard 1975 stoned.jpg’) was sent to me 9 November 2010 with the accompanying note, verbatim: ‘and I could not help but share a photograph of Richard from his early days , during college , when he consumed Magic mushrooms in green tea. Why? because when he showed me this picture, he did tell me that it was taken while he was tripping – i found the pic funny because of his smile in it.’ RICHARD: G’day [No. 4], So, you had not been ‘shown a photo’ after all (it was ‘sent to me’ you say) but you instead took on the wording of an – unverified – claim that an unnamed sender used (‘showed me this picture’) as your own truth, eh? Glad to have that one sorted out, at least, because your (borrowed) wording (in #126xx So, I ask you again: just how well do *you* know her – and her family – such as to be telling your co-respondent those things? Regards, Richard. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: Is that going to be how you excuse yourself of all this made up stuff you keep making public – and why you get all indignant about the (surely quite predictable) feedback from me – inasmuch you are not making it all up but are mindlessly regurgitating the stuff some (un-named) other person/ persons made up? Also, again be advised that when the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago ingested psylocibin one evening in *mid-1980* – on the advice of an (erstwhile) associate under the (misguided) impression it was similar to tetrahydrocannabinol (only much stronger) – no cameras were present, no photos were taken, no photographic image whatsoever exists of that event. [emphasis added].
RETURN TO MAILING LIST ‘D’ 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 |
