Actual Freedom – Mailing List ‘D’ Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence On Mailing List ‘D’

with Correspondent No. 4


Continued from Mailing List ‘AF’: No. 60

June 3 2013

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:

Q: ‘If this is correct, would you mind telling ...’?

A: ‘As that is not correct, there’s nothing to tell’.

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 that does depend to every extent on what somebody else does, says, is, and reports to be?

(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:

• [Respondent]: My view remains: best find a way to live that doesn’t depend to any extent on what I do, say, am, or claim to be.

Ain’t life grand!

Regards, Richard.

June 4 2013

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:

Q: ‘If this is correct, would you mind telling ...’?

A: ‘As that is not correct, there’s nothing to tell’.

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 – it is up to you to now put a stop to what you started.

Here again is that ‘conditional query’ Q&A example:

Q: ‘If this is correct, would you mind telling ...’?

A: ‘As that is not correct, there’s nothing to tell’.

‘Tis such a simple thing, non?

Regards, Richard.

June 5 2013

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. Vis.:

Q: ‘If this is correct, would you mind telling ...’?

A: ‘As that is not correct, there’s nothing to tell’.

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:

#13637
From: [Respondent No. 37
Date: Sun Jun 2, 2013 2:36 am
Subject: Re: Few humble words from Justine

[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?

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, you just do not know what the truth is.

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 myself I could understand why you did – upon you posting that particular [quote] ‘one of your messages’ [endquote] your co-respondent had incorrectly remembered – when characterising my telephone calls and emails, to my third wife (de facto) whilst she was in New Zealand in late 2009, in that manner. Vis.:

#11349
From: [Respondent
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:55 pm
Subject: Re: Richard writes mysticism

[Respondent]: I was there when it happened. [...snip...] (1) ‘no libido’: the claim that the instinctual-passionate drive for sex/ power/ dominance/ primacy is null and void in ‘actual freedom’ is ... well ... let’s put it this way: if it’s true, it certainly manifests in strange/ unexpected ways. Eg. In February 2010 the genitor of actual freedom [...] was actively trying to woo another woman back into a full-time sexual relationship with him (which she had suspended while trying to decide her future); [...].

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’ [endquote] that person.

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.

June 7 2013

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:

[No. 6 Sockpuppet ‘W’]: not sure if that is the reason that Tom withdrew the sponsorship for the ship

[Respondent]: I was there when it happened. Tom told me his reasons.

***********************

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. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘... I’ll throw in my two cents here because it’s informed by *reliable testimony and observation* ...’.

• [Respondent]: ‘To the best of my knowledge, it’s neither illegal nor immoral to write truthfully about these matters (from *on-site observation and direct testimony*) – otherwise I wouldn’t be doing it’. [emphases added].

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:

• [Respondent]: ‘I was present when Richard broke the news to the rest of the crew that Tom had put the kibosh on the plan. He (Richard) came into Peter & Vineeto’s domicile bearing a bottle of wine to ‘celebrate’ (Richard’s words) the fact that Tom had ‘stopped lying’ (Richard’s words)... which, if true, suggests that there might have been other factors in Tom’s decision’.

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.

June 7 2013

Re: Few humble words from Justine

RESPONDENT: Richard, you wrote only yesterday:

RICHARD: What I am saying is not correct is [quote] ‘Richard was trying to woo a girl on another continent’ [endquote].

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. Vis.:

#13637
From: [Respondent No. 37
Date: Sun Jun 2, 2013 2:36 am
Subject: Re: Few humble words from Justine

[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?

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. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘he was actively trying to woo another woman *back into* a full-time sexual relationship’ [emphasis added].

• [Respondent]: ‘he was in the process of actively *recruiting another* woman to be his full-time, live-in sex partner’ [emphasis added].

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.

• [Respondent]: ‘such pedantry is not my style Richard, and never will be’. (Message No. 13702).

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 can justify).

Regards, Richard.

June 23 2013

[No. 4] wrote [in #14256]: Put it on the table

#14256
From: Respondent
Date: Fri Jun 21, 2013 10:45 am
Subject: Re: Just who is toying with his fellow humans?

• [Respondent]: Richard, Do you realise that, despite all this talk of yours about ‘made up’ stuff, you have not ever demonstrated that I have ‘made up’ anything about you?

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 and related posts,,) I demonstrated that your ... ha! ... your narrative (in #11349) about how [quote] ‘In February 2010 the genitor of actual freedom (...) was actively trying to woo another woman back into a full-time sexual relationship with him (which she had suspended while trying to decide her future)’. [endquote] was made up stuff.

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) to the central issue you have it revolve around – what you narratise as [quote] ‘a full-time sexual relationship with him’ [endquote] – because it is also a matter of public knowledge that our live-in association at that time was initiated by, and primarily based upon, an actual intimacy ... and not sex and sexuality.

For instance:

• [Respondent]: 3) Why, if you had a ‘perfect’ relationship with Irene, would you want to add a third party?

• [Richard]: This is the way I described how it all began:

• [Richard]: ‘... my current companion shared a house in a large coastal city with my previous companion before either of them ... (1) ever met me ... and (2) moved to the seaside village where I reside. My previous companion and I, whilst living together, happened to meet the woman who was to become my current companion when strolling along a village street one day and stopped to chat (as peoples everywhere are wont to do); in the midst of the conversation the woman who was to become my current companion experienced what she described, as it was occurring, as an intimacy closer than she had ever had with herself ... which closeness prompted her to move in with me and my then companion (her previous house-mate)’.

My previous companion was, of course, well aware of such an intimacy. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘As to [an actual intimacy with every body and every thing and every event] I wonder if you could give any description as to this hmm experience of ‘intimacy with every body and every thing and every event’.

• [Richard]: ‘Perhaps the words my current companion used, when experiencing an actual intimacy upon serendipitously meeting me in the street one day in 1996 (which experience prompted her to move in with me and my then companion), would convey it in a way you may be able to relate to ... she described it as a closeness which was more intimate than she had ever experienced with her own self.

Or, for another description, my previous companion likened it to being closer than her own heartbeat was to her’.

In short: the ménage à trois was initiated by, and primarily based upon, an actual intimacy ... and not sex and sexuality. (Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 68b, 6 May 2005).

For another instance of an actual intimacy being the primary factor in regards to a live-in association with me in any ménage arrangement:

• [Respondent No. 14]: 2. My female partner said after some months of practice: ‘Your libido are too much to me!’. But we still married and happy together. So, if you permit one correlated impertinence: Why are you single now?

• [Richard]: As libido is null and void for me then being sexually active or not is purely a matter of preference. What this means in effect is that sexual congress, because of its utter proximity, has more to do with intimacy than anything else.

Now, here is where it becomes quite an intriguing matter because, and as a generalisation only, women tend to place more emphasis on intimacy than men. Indeed, many a woman has bewailed the dearth of men prepared to make the big commitment required for such connubial accord.

Yet they are deathly afraid of intimacy – the fear of intimacy is a subject most women have talked to me about – for it means loss of self.

And therein lies the rub: the survival instincts can kick in big-time, especially during sexual congress, and the very opposite of the longed-for intimacy takes place (as in pulling-back, turning-away, closing-off, shutting-down, and so on).

As peculiar as it may sound, on a purely intellectual level, the very thing peoples most want is the very thing they most fear. When their very survival (as an identity) is at stake all manner of weird behaviour can take place – to the point of utter bizarrerie – as is readily evidenced in the archived correspondence on The Actual Freedom Trust website.

I have said before, and will say it again, how actualism is not for the faint of heart or the weak at knee as it requires nerves of steel to delve the stygian depths of the human psyche.

Put briefly: unless or until such a woman comes into my purview being single, in this respect, will remain my ongoing status. (List D, No. 14a., 9 Nov 2009).

And a another instance:

• [Respondent No. 6]: Yes. That is what most women will look forward to.

• [Richard]: Aye, yet when that opportunity is freely accessible – as an ever-available living actuality – all manner of weird behaviour can take place (to the point of utter bizarrerie).

Now, obviously I am not going to go into details as my reports are circumscribed by the fact that the persons concerned are both readily identifiable and still alive (I have no such constraints when talking about just myself) but as the subject is of primary importance – man-woman sexuality and intimacy is the genesis of family and thus the very core of civilisation itself – there is too much at stake for me to take my unique insight to the grave/ pyre/ whatever.

To explain: I have had three wives – with each marriage spanning more than a decade – as three different persons (a normal person, a mystical person and a freed person).

In my first marriage I was both a normal person (at first masculinist then later feministic) and a spiritually enlightened/ mystically awakened person.

In my second marriage I was first an enlightened/ awakened person then later an actually freed person.

My third marriage was solely as a person actually free from the human condition.

Hence me being well-placed to know what nobody else can know.

Plus, in the five celibate years between my first and second marriages, I was the single parent of young daughters (at first two girls then later one girl) and gained much understanding at that grass-roots level.

Also many women during that period – at least a score if not more – most insistently proposed, via blatant sexuality, either a ménage à deux or a ménage à trois. (Love Agapé is the most potent aphrodisiac ever to be invented).

Lastly, as a boy I only had girls as playmates (all the children in the near neighbourhood, in the remote farming community where I was born and raised, were female) and all through my life I have always preferred female company ... to the point of much mocking and ridicule for being thus considered effeminate (to use a more polite word).

Most importantly: I like women – they are simply marvellous creatures when at their best – and, being such victims of their own emotions and passions, are both ripe for and deserving of liberation.

Especially so as, where the women go, there go men too (eventually). (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) on the grounds it was all about [quote] ‘libido’ [endquote] – and how [quote] ‘any anthropologist would recognise it [the convivium] as one of the oldest social structures known to humankind’ [endquote] – it is pertinent to note that libido (Latin, meaning ‘desire’, ‘lust’, and referring to the instinctual sex drive, urge or impulse to procreate and perpetuate the species) is not, and never has been nor ever will be, the driver of the longing for intimacy, the yearning for an end to separation, the vital interest in loss of self ... nor even the means whereby altruism trumps selfism.

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, and first endorsed by this forum’s chief ((((-: ‘snappy one-liners’ :-))) criticaster, on Feb 17, 2012 – tends to reinforce the impression many, many emails convey of a readily impressionable mind in operation once again.

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.

Vis.:

#10573
From: richard.actualfreedom
Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 2:58 am
Subject: Re: Trip

• [Rick]: [...].

• [Richard]: [Vineeto] completed that transitional period I wrote about, in that initial email of mine to this forum [the deleted/censored #10532] which you responded to (and which period took 30+ months for me all those years ago), on the 19th of October last year – thus taking about 9 and 1/2 months – and has been experiencing the ‘meaning-of-life’ actual freedom ever since[1].

What this means is that, as there is now both a male and a female fully here in this actual world, the completely new consciousness (a totally original way of being conscious) for all humankind to avail themselves of, and which I have been the sole genitor of all this while, is nowadays entirely equitable.

And this is truly marvellous.

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, because there is no stopping purblind egoists once their feeling-fuelled minds fixate on what they puerilely imagine is cutting-down-to-size sarcasm.

Vis.:

#11273
From: richard.actualfreedom
Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:44 pm
Subject: Re: [...] about two types of Actual Freedom

• [Richard]: [...] as the flesh-and-blood body typing these words – being sans the entire affective faculty/ the identity in toto – is being conscious (aka sentient) in a completely new/ totally original way (never before in human experience/ in human history has any body been able to be conscious/ able to be sentient thus sans the very psyche itself) then that epithet is a most apt descriptor inasmuch it explicitly conveys the radical nature inherent to the genesis of this epoch-changing consciousness. [...].

• [Claudiu]: Prior to hearing you use that phrase, I thought an actual freedom from the human condition was your *discovery*.

• [Richard]: To be precise: it was the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago (in 1980, during a four-hour PCE, where it was indelibly imprinted into ‘his’ memory) who discovered what later came to be known as an actual freedom from the human condition. Vis.: [...].

• [Claudiu]: [...]

• [Richard]: [...] when someone discovers something then everyone else thereafter utilises that person’s discovery ... they do not, each and every one of them thereafter, discover it.

Just to illustrate: when the aeroplane you are on lands in Australia are you really going to say, when you alight and set foot on the tarmac, that you have discovered Terra Australis Incognita? Similarly, the actual world – hereafter known as Terra Actualis (to coin a unique name for it) – is already discovered and, as a direct consequence, is increasingly becoming populated. [...].

Put simplistically, as the already always existing peace-on-earth is located in the already always existing Terra Actualis (ha ... used it already) then what has been required all this while is access to it, non? Hence a totally new way of being conscious (a completely original consciousness) for all humankind to avail themselves of. (Hence also, of course, that feature known as ‘the quickening’).

• [Claudiu]: [...].

• [Richard]: I do not ‘bring people into’ it; it is their own bodily consciousness – their own flesh-and-blood body being conscious or sentient – which is radically changed (via total and complete ‘self’-immolation). [...].

• [Claudiu]: Did you create this new consciousness, or merely discover it?

• [Richard]: Neither ... by being this flesh-and-blood body only (‘only’ as in sans the entire psyche) I am *generating* this new consciousness/this new way of being sentient (each moment again, in real-world time terminology, or perennially, in actual world terminology). And, because this flesh-and-blood body is generating it – and generating it autonomously by the way – it is being generated calorifically (as in it is a calorific sentience).

• [Claudiu]: If the latter – why the use of the word ‘genitor’?

• [Richard]: ‘Tis no wonder all the criticasters writing on this forum began airing their ignorance in public with expressions like ‘Mr. Genitor’ and ‘O Genitor’, and so on, after reading this post of yours.

Perhaps if I were to put it this way: currently there are close to 7.0 billion flesh-and-blood bodies on this planet all generating their own consciousness, their own sentience, and yet each and every one of them (bar a mere handful so far) has an usurper – an alien entity/a feeling-being – lurking within and arrogating that consciousness, that sentience, by making out it is ‘their’ consciousness (as in ‘my’ consciousness). Hence, of course, those ‘Mr. Genitor’ and ‘O Genitor’, and so on, expressions.

‘Tis all so simple, eh?

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

P.S.: Again, please bear in mind that, in actualism terminology, the word consciousness refers to a flesh-and-blood body being conscious (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition), as in being sentient, and not to some mystical/ psychic entity, which ‘quits the body’ at physical death, as is so prevalent in religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical terminology.

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) elicited the following post (#11275) in very short order.

Vis.:

#11275
From: Respondent No. 2
Date: Mon Feb 20, 2012 5:06 am
Subject: Re: [...] about two types of Actual Freedom

• [Richard]: Yes, indeed ... as the flesh-and-blood body typing these – being sans the entire affective faculty/the identity in toto – is being conscious (aka sentient) [...].
• [Respondent No. 2]: Is there anybody left on this list who gives a fuck about how you explain a newly coined term about yourself?

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 and related posts,,).

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’ for all that made up stuff (circulated surreptitiously, clandestinely, via private emails) which none of the vigilante secretarium – who charged, tried, judged, and condemned their phantom ‘Richard’ in camera – had even informed me of).

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, are ‘wrecked it’) resulting in her fearing for her life (‘grave consequences, such as with my life’, in message #10563, plus ‘eliminate me physically’, message #10750) were she to fly to Australia as planned the next month ... or even ever.

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) whereupon I will demonstrate that only one half-sentence is accurate, true, by virtue of being informed by what you phrase as ‘on-site observation’ and ‘reliable ... observation’.

Vis.:

• [Respondent No. 4]: ‘To the best of my knowledge, it’s neither illegal nor immoral to write truthfully about these matters (from *on-site observation* and direct testimony) – otherwise I wouldn’t be doing it’.

• [Respondent No. 4]: ‘... I’ll throw in my two cents here because it’s informed by *reliable* testimony and *observation* ...’. [emphases added]. (Message No. 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).

Regards, Richard.

June 23 2013

Re: [No. 4] wrote [in #14256]: Put it on the table

#14256
From: Respondent
Date: Fri Jun 21, 2013 10:45 am
Subject: Re: Just who is toying with his fellow humans?

• [Respondent]: Richard, Do you realise that, despite all this talk of yours about ‘made up’ stuff, you have not ever demonstrated that I have ‘made up’ anything about you?

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 and related posts,,). [...]

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, are ‘wrecked it’) resulting in her fearing for her life (‘grave consequences, such as with my life’, in message #10563, plus ‘eliminate me physically’, message #10750) were she to fly to Australia as planned the next month ... or even ever.

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) whereupon I will demonstrate that only one half-sentence is accurate, true, by virtue of being informed by what you phrase as ‘on-site observation’ and ‘reliable ... observation’. Vis.: [...]

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 – many, many years ago and are all duly archived and thus freely available online.

Regards, Richard.

June 24 2013

Re: Power, dominance hierarchy, control of narrative

CLAUDIU: [...] The problem is that everybody has a different way they’d like Richard to behave. Since itd 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...
http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/dis cussion/-/message_boards/message/1201014

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’ is a sock-puppet of ... or are you, for some as yet unfathomable reason, still currently grateful for being fed a pack of lies (e.g. #12672)?

Regards, Richard.

June 25 2013

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.
2) Person is emotionally fucked up to begin with, so nothing they say about their distressing experience can be taken seriously.

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.

Vis.:

#14096
From: richard.actualfreedom
Date: Sun Jun 16, 2013 12:48 am
Subject: Re: Few humble words from Justine

• [Richard]: [...] the following partly fits that depiction of yours (but not your ‘threatened to post details’ part of course). Vis.:

#110xx
From: [Respondent No. 2]:
Date: Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:30 am
Subject: Evidence, was Re: No. 2 and No. 4

• [Respondent No. 2]: The sharer is not sure that the material would not scandalize the sharer itself in the society that the sharer lives in and so would make the sharer’s future life even more troublesome.
The sharer likely has already paid an extremely heavy social cost for the sharer’s misadventure. [...].

If I might ask? Just what is it that persuades you to state [quote] ‘would have tarred her image in the society she happens to be living in beyond repair’ [endquote]? My reason for asking is that she wrote to the directors of The Actual Freedom Trust (on Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:30 AM), advising of her academic qualification/position, and asking for copy-right permission – which was readily granted – to quote and provide reference to The Actual Freedom Trust website in blogs and academic writing (conference papers and research papers for publication in journals).
Further to that point: whilst I was in India, in 2010, she formally introduced me to various colleagues/ associates/ acquaintances/ friends – in dinner-party/ supper-party/ dining-out/ home-hosting type settings – where the conversations ranged *freely* in regards to life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are.
(Maybe you are not aware that in India – arguably the bed-rock of deep, profound, religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical experience – there is nothing that would ‘scandalize’, be ‘troublesome’, or of an ‘extremely heavy social cost’, such as [quote] ‘would have tarred her image in the society she happens to be living in beyond repair’ [endquote], by being associated with me, discussing such matters as this mailing-list forum is set-up for (my reports/ descriptions/ explanations of going beyond nirvana/ samadhi and/or parinirvana/ mahasamadhi), or anything of similar ilk).

• [Respondent No. 37]: Nothing of the above mentioned would scandalize or be troublesome etc. ...

• [Richard]: Okay ... as none of the ‘above mentioned’ is what you had in mind, when you told Srid that [quote] ‘a sock puppet came on to this forum and threatened to post details of what transpired between this lady and Richard which would have tarred her image in the society she happens to be living in beyond repair’ [endquote], it is not at all surprising just what it is that you did have in mind, then.
Could it, perchance, have been planted in your mind by the way in which that #11325 message you specifically referred to was worded? Vis.: [...].

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.

Vis.:

#126xx
From: Respondent
Date: Tue Jan 8, 2013 1:53 pm
Subject: Re: Privacy vs. Public Interest

• [Respondent]: G’day Richard, [...]. (But kind of goofy as well. I’ve been shown a photo of a young, bearded Richard tripping off his nut on mushrooms, with a huge grin that instantly evoked the same in me, and that’s a ‘Richard’ I immediately liked. [...].

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.

June 25 2013

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. Vis.: [...]

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.

Vis.:

#126xx
From: Respondent
Date: Tue Jan 8, 2013 1:53 pm
Subject: Re: Privacy vs. Public Interest

• [Respondent]: G’day Richard, [...]. (But kind of goofy as well. I’ve been shown a photo of a young, bearded Richard tripping off his nut on mushrooms, with a huge grin that instantly evoked the same in me, and that’s a ‘Richard’ I immediately liked. [...].

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) made it look as if you might have met in-person.

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].


RESPONDENT NO. 4 (Part Three)

RETURN TO MAILING LIST ‘D’ INDEX

RICHARD’S HOME PAGE

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 and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity