Actual Freedom – Mailing List ‘D’ Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence On Mailing List ‘D’

with Correspondent No. 19


Continued from Mailing List ‘AF’ 30:

November 30 2009

Re: Questions To Richard

RESPONDENT: Hi Richard Thank you for everything you have done so far. It has been life changing for me. It is nice to have you writing in this list, as your mails leave me with wonder and amazement due to so many attributes I find in them which I normally do not encounter anywhere else. And apart from the videos, it is primarily through the mails and the articles I know about you.

RICHARD: G’day No. 19, I appreciate your words of encouragement.

As the mailing list format had reached its use-by date more than a few years ago (having out-lived its usefulness), and as already signalled, it is more than likely that the personal way of knowing about me will become available, albeit selectively, some time in the new year; although it is way too early to publicly say more, at this stage, plans are afoot (subject to the funding being finalised) to not only facilitate this direct access but enable an informal interaction with several other actualists as well.

RESPONDENT: Certain aspects like the identity being an illusion, identity in abeyance are still hard to grasp for my intellect, though intuitively they are clear (or is it the other way?).

RICHARD: Both the illusory/ delusory identity and its illusory/ delusory world (its affective ‘inner world’ generates a fictitious ‘outer world’) go into abeyance when a PCE happens and the actual world (the world of the senses) becomes apparent.

It is more than just hard to grasp for an intellect: as I have said, on many an occasion, it is inconceivable/ unimaginable and incomprehensible/ unbelievable that a pristine purity – an immaculate perfection – of such munificent magnitude could possibly exist as a physicality.

It has to be directly apprehended – intimately experienced as the senses only (‘as’ not ‘via’ the senses) as actuality is not a matter of intuition.

RESPONDENT: My questions here are mostly about the identity ‘Richard’. I know that prior to 1981 there were certain traits that could be ascribed to the identity ‘Richard’ – who decided after the 4 hours of PCE to take a voyage that cast him away from the original destiny for 11 years and then with an admirable determination ‘he’ took the final leap into oblivion – to result in you, who are at present reaping the benefits of such an action. You have spoken about the striving for integrity from him (the bit about looking into the mirror), and the determination to find out no matter what (from the memory of PCE) as some good qualities in ‘him’ that enabled the result – apart from other aspects I do find admirable too: a history of being in the war zone and experiencing and reflecting on such, farm-boy and the early PCE or naiveté you speak about, your pottery and becoming one with the doing – though not sure whether these were any crucial for such a result.

RICHARD: What is crucial for such a result is, in a word, destiny.

RESPONDENT: In any case, I am extremely curious about ‘him’ – about the ‘good’ as well as ‘bad’ (in general – if it is not personal like shame, shyness, fear, guilt, sorrow, grief) aspects of ‘him’ – I know that you burnt most of your writings – unlike Krishnamurti’s earlier writings which he could not get rid of though he ceased to allude or speak about them mostly (on occasions, he would speak about that ‘boy’).

RICHARD: The only reason I burned those writings – about 80,000 words in the same 3-paragraph section/ 3-page article format as ‘Richard’s Journal’ is – the day after being actually freed was because they would have only added confusion to the clarity and purity of the actual via the mish-mash of the very mysticality/ actuality they were composed of.

(Essentially they were descriptive/ explanatory articles of the many PCE’s which the spiritually enlightened/ mystically awakened identity had in the latter years; as such the peerless physicality was tainted by the metaphysicality which was the normality which prevailed when abeyance ended; my second wife who, having a command of grammar via being conversant of five languages, edited all my early writing, often observed that this tainture lay in me not permanently living what was therein described/ explained).

RESPONDENT: You have mentioned that you do not have any inhibition about speaking any of today’s aspects, but if you have such an attitude about your past as well, I would like to hear about it. Maybe if you think it may not be central to this list, would like to ask if you have any interest in pursuing this autobiographical line in your blogs or independent writings – is there a web site other than the www.actualfreedom.com.au where your writings are there now?

RICHARD: There is a website other than that one – as a sub-domain it has an unique URL – but, being barely begun, it is far from ready for publication; I do not have a blog (it was because I was writing on a secular blog that I registered as a blogger so as to be less anonymous) and probably never will as I have complete technical control (as well as authorial and editorial control) over every aspect of the sub-domain.

I am none-too-sure what you are looking for – I was a normal infant, child, youth, teenager, young man and adult (albeit with a predilection for female company and a disinclination about typically manly pursuits) – but as I have nothing to hide, and am circumspect only where it involves readily identifiable people still alive, there is no reason not to write of matters worthy of note.

Being indignant – fairness/ unfairness or justice/ injustice – featured quite prominently; there was a debilitating shyness, exacerbated by a pre-teen lisp, which prevailed through to adulthood; cowardice played a major role (as in giving rise to appeasement/ pacification); terror, particularly nightmares, was a common occurrence; day-dreaming was a consistent modus operandi; by nature romantic artistic endeavours were an obvious career path; by being particularly sensitive flights of fancy took the form of becoming a beachcomber instead (tropical isles, turquoise lagoons, coral sands and swaying palms); as sex and sexuality were on overdrive 24/7 naked and nubile females have been a dominant theme; and what was wanted more than anything else was to play for fun (rather than for keeps), to use the jargon of marble games, with those who would join me.

How is that for starters?

Regards, Richard.

Continued on Direct Route: No. 12

Continued from Direct Route: No. 12

December 08 2012

Re: Better phrasings...

RESPONDENT: I always thought that any bit of confrontational wisdom that is felt by me and some other few in Richard’s words can be rephrased in way that is less or non-confrontational .... though he believed that it is the nature of the wisdom (and of the self) that such things happen.... as a proof of my opinion, I was pondering over the oft repeated statements and one example here: Actualist wording: Feelings are not facts, they don’t exist in the actual world (this is not quote and quote, but surely the core actualists will have no issues with the above statement).

My rephrasal: Mental life is not an actuality as it is merely a reaction/interpretation/representation of the actuality. And feelings/psyche/real world etc... not being actual is merely an instance of this general wisdom... and stated this way, it is non-confrontational and readily agreeable and self evident. In fact, I claim that the essence of this also captured by Krishnamurti’s ‘The word is not the thing’. I know that Richard wants to specially emphasize upon feelings here, but this special emphasis is artificial and generated by the goal of actual freedom.

SRID: No. 19, Richard is not ‘emphasizing’ feelings here (he umabiguously reports that a feeling is not a fact); rather *you*, by your watered-down re-phrasing, are de-emphasizing feelings by insincerely mixing in thoughts into the illusory/actual distinction.

no thanks, i’d rather have someone call a spade a spade instead of twisting a potentially offensive fact only to go astray on the practice for years (your watered-down rephrasing could easily make an actualist reading it go lax on investigating feelings because he ‘readily agrees’ that thoughts and feelings are not part of the physical/corporeal world; duh!).

RICHARD: Whilst on the subject of ‘better phrasings’ (as in the ‘I-Know-Better-Than-Richard’ titling of this thread), and the topic of there being no feelings in actuality, it has been brought to my attention that you recently posted three (unreferenced) quotes on another forum, written by feeling-being ‘Peter’ back in 2003, so as to provide ‘food for thought’ ... List D, Srid, 7 December 2012

RESPONDENT: Hi Richard Pardon me for my intervention. Reporting as a normal human being, do you think adding a little bit of what we call compassion in the normal world to this correspondence (as it is evident from its absence) could be harmful?

RICHARD: G’day No. 19, Indeed so ... very, very harmful, in fact, as that would mean an in-situ feeling-being would be directing my actions, as in dictating what words these finger-tips tap out on the keyboard, and thus be perpetuating all the anger and anguish – all the misery and mayhem – by me still being the host of that very ‘being’ (I am sure you are not asking me to fake compassion in my words and writings).

When someone – anyone at all – speaks or writes to you with compassion (meaning they can empathise with your condition, your very being, your presence itself, as they too are likewise a feeling-being, an affective presence, as in being present-to-oneself, in all such interactions) it evokes a feeling of communion, or some-such similar word, as in a sharing-in-common of the communal human plight, as in ‘suffering together’ (com+passio=together in pathos or suffering in common), and so on.

Just consider for a moment: if you could detect even a trace of compassion – just a smidgeon of empathy (some heart-felt commiseration, perhaps, or sympathy, pity and all the rest) – in my words and writings then it would mean that I was faking being free of the human condition, faking being a flesh-and-blood body only (i.e. sans feeling-being), faking being actually caring (as contrasted to affectively caring), faking an actual intimacy, and so forth ... in a word: a charlatan.

As to why that absence of compassion, which absence you rightly say is evident in this correspondence, is not being welcomed, with relief that a break-through has finally been forged, continues to speaks volumes about the gravity of the human condition.

RESPONDENT: I can see the phantom Richard in my skull going off into saying how he is not capable of any compassion, but I hope you understand the hypothetical and the impact of it.

RICHARD: I do not understand the hypothetical – let alone the impact of it – as I can (intellectually) recall 34 + 11 years of hosting a feeling-being (for 34 years a normal feeling-being + for 11 years a super-normal feeling-being) and can correspondingly recall the welcome relief which that feeling-being experienced when a temporary break-through had occurred (PCE) and the purity, clarity and cleanliness of actual caring and an actual intimacy had prevailed.

RESPONDENT: I appreciate your work, but ...

RICHARD: I will interject here because experience has shown that when someone immediately follows a compliment with some form of a ‘but’ they do not really mean what the compliment is purportedly conveying (else there would be no call for any form of ‘but’).

Why not be honest, No. 19, and say what you mean?

For example:

[example only]: ‘I do not appreciate your work because I can’t help thinking the above (as it is evident in the better phrasings subject, I think it is fairer to interpret it as ...’. [end example].

RESPONDENT: ... but can’t help thinking the above (as it is evident in the better phrasings subject, I think it is fairer to interpret it as I-know-there-exists-a-better-phrasing-than-his-since-I-am- not-able-to-swallow-it-as-it-is-no-matter-how-hard-I-try rather than I-know-it-better-than-Richard).

Thanks!

RICHARD: This is what I wrote:

[Richard]: ‘Whilst on the subject of ‘better phrasings’ (as in the ‘I-Know-Better-Than-Richard’ titling of this thread) ... ’.

I am only too happy to replace it with your version. Vis.:

[example only]: ‘Whilst on the subject of ‘better phrasings’ (as in the ‘I-know-there-exists-a-better-phrasing-than-his’ titling of this thread) ... ’. [end example].

Even though you buried what you really mean in a long string of words it does not disguise the fact that, as far as you are concerned, you know better than Richard how to phrase the words used to report/ describe/ explain living life as a flesh-and-blood body only (sans feeling-being).

*

If I might ask? Why did you not keep the appointment you made to meet me in Simla, India (on either the 29th-30th of June or the 7th-8th of July, 2010)?

Or, put differently, why did you wait until you were back in the USA before advising me, on the 19th of July, 2010, you would not be keeping that appointment?

Just curious.

Regards, Richard.

December 16 2012

Re: Better phrasings...

RICHARD: [...]. Whilst on the subject of ‘better phrasings’ (as in the ‘I-Know-Better-Than-Richard’ titling of this thread), and the topic of there being no feelings in actuality ...

RESPONDENT: Pardon me for my intervention. Reporting as a normal human being, do you think adding a little bit of what we call compassion in the normal world to this correspondence (as it is evident from its absence) could be harmful?

RICHARD: Indeed so ... very, very harmful, in fact, as that would mean an in-situ feeling-being would be directing my actions, as in dictating what words these finger-tips tap out on the keyboard, and thus be perpetuating all the anger and anguish – all the misery and mayhem – by me still being the host of that very ‘being’.

RESPONDENT: Aren’t you painting an extremely negative picture without consideration to the positive? It is like taking a piece of meal and focusing only on the salt. The salt is a fact, but yet, the partial view is only a partial view.

RICHARD: G’day No. 19, I am only too happy to re-phrase my response so that it be in accord with your plaint. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: Pardon me for my intervention. Reporting as a normal human being, do you think adding a little bit of what we call compassion in the normal world to this correspondence (as it is evident from its absence) could be harmful?

• [Richard]: Indeed so ... very, very harmful, in fact, as that would mean an in-situ feeling-being would be directing my actions, as in dictating what words these finger-tips tap out on the keyboard, and thus be perpetuating all the empathy and sympathy – all the consoling and commiserating – by me still being the host of that very ‘being’.

(I am sure you are not asking me to fake compassion in my words and writings).

RESPONDENT: To tell you the truth, though I wouldn’t call it ‘faking’, that is precisely what I am asking.

RICHARD: As you would not call an addition of fake compassion into this correspondence ‘faking’ then what would you call it ... ‘skillful means’ (upaya-kosalla), perchance?

RESPONDENT: Your words appear too grandiose viewed from here ...

RICHARD: Really? Words about being a flesh-and-blood body only (i.e. sans feeling-being), written by that very flesh-and-blood body, appear ‘grandiose’ to you?

Ha ... not only have I have oft-times explained that I am a *fellow human being* (albeit without any identity/any affections) I have also spelled-out what I am not. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I guess I must separate the teaching from the teacher ...’.

• [Richard]: ‘If I may interject? I do not either have a ‘teaching’ nor am I a ‘teacher’ (...). I am a fellow human being (albeit sans identity/affections in toto) providing a report of what I have discovered and not some latter-day teacher (aka sage or seer, god-man or guru, master or messiah, saviour or saint, and so on) with yet another bodiless ‘teaching’. Richard, The Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 53a, 28 October 2003

And if I might point out? The following is a classic example of what the word grandiose properly refers to. Vis.:

• [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: `You won’t find another body like this, or that *supreme intelligence*, operating in a body for many hundred years. You won’t see it again. When he goes, it goes. There is no consciousness left behind of that consciousness, of that state. They’ll all pretend or try to imagine they can get in touch with that. Perhaps they will somewhat if they live the teachings. But nobody has done it. Nobody. And so that’s that’. [emphasis added]. (p. 206, ‘Krishnamurti – His Life and Death’ by Mary Lutyens. © Avon Books; New York, 1991).

And I particularly reference Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s grandiose words (and not some other massively deluded sage, seer, and so on) because of your earlier watering-down promotion of an equivalence betwixt my words and his. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘(...) In fact, I claim that the essence of this [i.e. Richard’s ‘feelings don’t exist in the actual world’ words] is also captured by Krishnamurti’s ‘The word is not the thing’. (Message No. 11860)

RESPONDENT: ... and have you considered that they can be off-putting to the ego’s with which we sail here?

RICHARD: Simply because words about being a flesh-and-blood body only cannot possibly be grandiose – let alone ‘too grandiose’ – it has never occurred to me that my words can be off-putting for any such self-defensive reason as that.

RESPONDENT: That’s why Tarin’s rephrasal sounded better to me ...

RICHARD: Then why are you writing to me and not to him? Why did you not arrange to meet him (especially as he, too, lives in the USA) instead of me? Why, in fact, are you even subscribed to a forum set-up to discuss an actual freedom from the human condition (let alone be a moderator deleting my posts) and not interacting on a pragmatic/hardcore dharma forum where his and the other affer’s meditative detachment-dissociative techniques and/or meditational affective-repression procedures are regularly taught and practiced?

*

Look, here is the sequence thus far:

1. You asked me if adding compassion to this correspondence could be harmful.

2. I answered truthfully – it would be very, very harmful indeed – because it would mean an in-situ feeling-being would be dictating what words these finger-tips tap out on the keyboard (and thus be perpetuating all the anger and anguish, all the misery and mayhem, by me still being the host of that very ‘being’).

3. Instead of facing-up to this central fact – that it is an in-situ feeling-being (as per your ‘reporting as a normal human being’ words) who is asking the question about adding compassion – you instead divert attention away from what this central fact undeniably implies via a critique of what you depict as being an ‘extremely negative picture without consideration to the positive’.

4. You say that me faking compassion in my words and writings is precisely what you are asking (although not calling it ‘faking’ of course).

5. You then further divert into a new topic entirely (about my down-to-earth/matter-of-fact ‘I am this flesh-and-blood body only’ words appearing ‘too grandiose’ to you) in order to tell me, thereby, that I ought to have considered this because of an egoic sensitivity to this imagined grandiosity of yours.

6. You cap off this double diversion away from the real source of your plaints – you being an in-situ feeling-being – by telling me this is why a narrative from a (purportedly) ‘10-Fetter’ Arahant sounded better to you.

No. 19, it is your life you are living – I can only suggest – and what you do with my suggestions is, of course, entirely up to you (it is you and not me who reaps the rewards or pays the consequences for any action or inaction you may or may not do and, provided you comply with the legal laws and observe the social protocols, you will be left alone to live your life as wisely or as foolishly as you wish).

And what I suggest is, of course, to read Message No. 10915

Regards, Richard.

January 1 2013

Re: it is impossible to marry Actualism and Buddhism

RICHARD to No. 37 (Sock Puppet ‘I’): I will again ask: does the fact you keep on typing this kind of stuff out, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, not give you pause to ask yourself, at least on occasion, just what it is you are doing with your life?

RESPONDENT No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’): WTF? you arrogant bastard! what business is it of yours what ...

RICHARD: I am interjecting mid-sentence so as to better have your own words illustrate the cause-effect nature – action/ behaviour/ deed –>result/ outcome/ consequence – of it being *you* who makes it my business via typing this kind of stuff out, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year.

And when I say ‘year after year’ I am not exaggerating as you have admitted to that very fact yourself (in June this year). Vis.:

#11669
From: humanbeingafellow
Date: Fri Jun 15, 2012 10:07 am
Subject: Re: a place to discuss freedom without the abuse...
[...].
i write what i do and how i do, to make it plain as day that i’m not interested in discussing Richard’s delusional AF, PCEs, EEs or onion slices. i merely pop in every now and then – having followed Richard’s discussions and shenanigans closely over the past 15 years – with key words for those as uninformed as yourself to do their research with, if (and that’s a big IF) they really wish to find out just what’s been going down here.
[...].

And again only recently (in December this year) you reaffirmed what you admitted in your above post. Vis.:

#12105
From: humanbeingafellow
Date: Tue Dec 25, 2012 5:58 am
Subject: Re: wow !
[...].
its nothing new. way back in ‘97 i saw what [Respondent No. 4] eventually reported after meeting him in 2010 (and wonder whether he may have feigned gullibility to witness that for us).
[...].

Although, your 15 years/1997 dating is incorrect – you are out by two years – as it was 13 years ago (on Tuesday, the 18th of May 1999 to be precise) that you first subscribed to an online forum I had already been writing to for five months or so. Vis.:

Message #01124 of Archive 99/05:
Subject: Hello All
From: Skye Chambers <skyechambers@...>
To: Listening-l <Listening-l@...>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 01:53:53 +1000
Sender: listening-l-owner@...
Hello everyone, I’ve just joined the list today after trying for weeks to subscribe, but at last with [List-owner’s] help finally I made it, whew.
I first came across the Krishnamurti’s books as an occasional member of the Sydney branch of the TS, about 20 years ago. I found them difficult to understand at that young age, but now his mental clarity is a delight to me.
[...].

And, while I am at it, you also acknowledged, a little over a year later, that [quote] ‘Richard knows my family name’ [endquote]. Vis.:

Message No. 00147 of Archive 00/07:
Subject: Re: Instincts
From: Skye Chambers <skyechambers@...>
To: listening-l@...
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000.
Dear K-list, you only know me as Skye so I will stick to that to avoid confusion, but Richard knows my family name on his Actual Freedom list.
[...].

And the reason why you said that [quote] ‘Richard knows my family name’ [endquote] is because of what you had written on The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list a few days earlier. Vis.:

From: Charlie Bragg <mailto:chazbragg@...>
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2000 2:09 AM
To: Actual Freedom <actualfreedom@...>
Subject: Re: Imagination
[...].
my brothers call this flesh and blood sister Chas.
:-) and yes Richard, Chaz is fine a chas sis too ;-)
[...].
~~~Okay, thank you very much Richard, i shall now look into this and the AF website further.
Regards, Skye (see )

In your follow-up ‘whoops’ email you admitted to having at least four internet email aliases. Vis.:

From: Charlie Bragg <mailto:chazbragg@...>
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 7:59 AM
To: Actual Freedom <actualfreedom@...>
Subject: Internet Aliases
Damn :))) now its my turn for the ‘Whoops! Well, well, well . ten demerits for not paying attention’,
Chaz.
P.S By the time I’ve accidentally signed all four we really will know ‘what’ I am and not who i am, yes?
Hohoho ;)))))

And, fast-forwarding to May 12, 2009, you admitted to using at least nine (9) internet email aliases. Vis.:

#5494
From: Skye
Date: Tue May 12, 2009 11:34 am
Subject: Re: c’est la vie
[...].
And there you have it. What did I tell you all? He was only here to play his sandbox games with me.
To slander my *immaculate* reputation here sob sob LOL :-)))
And this obsession with all my me’s has gone on for over 10 years now.
S+C+T+B+R+N+K+M+V ... etc.etc.etc. :-)))))) (see more here)

As for my query about ‘just what it is you are doing with your life’ your very own words, in the following post (when you unsubscribed from this forum in May 2009), should surely be self-explanatory. Vis.:

#5594
From: Skye
Date: Fri May 15, 2009 7:40 am
Subject: Re: Bye yee :-) skyebellau
[...].
Other than that there’s only two reasons I’m outta here.
The first I had already explained in a post before Richard came along. I am deathly tired of cyberspace. Every word I write (like now) has become a chore. I just want my actual life back now, 24/7 plain and simple [...].
This is an exciting time for me, like getting out of prison :-)))
Have a wonderful life everyone.
AtoZ

Lastly, this stuff you make-up and type out, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, will have grave consequences if you persist in telling lies which malign, libel and defame.

For instance, the following lies of yours in regards to attempted murder – of which properly dated and time-stamped screenshots have been taken and safely stored – constitute, without any doubt whatsoever, an actionable case. Vis.:

#11682
From: humanbeingafellow
Date: Mon Jun 18, 2012 6:29 am
Subject: Re: Richard: stepping aside
[...].
i don’t see how horrifying your visitors by dragging a terrified woman across the floor from one room to another then sitting one’s large male frame on her small chest and threatening to strangle her by squeezing her throat till shes breathless is NOT out right primal violence ??? THAT is not freedom from any condition.
its been done by male apes for millions of years. it is NOT the behaviour of an intelligent ‘kind’ 100% harmless, free-from-aggression, human being ...and thats just one of the many contradictory examples of Richard’s violating behaviour.
[...].

How you managed to become a middle-aged codger without comprehending that there are consequences, to such actions/ behaviours/ deeds as you perform online, has got me beat.

Also, the fact you have been thus engaged for 13 years (on your own cognisance for 15 years) it clearly amounts to a case of persecution as well.

So be it ... proceed at your own peril. Richard to No. 5, 31 December 2012

RESPONDENT No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’): cut the crap and address those reports NOW! to wit: ‘that youre a perverted woman bashing ...

RICHARD: I am stopping you right there solely for the sake of demonstrating something you have quite evidentially overlooked ... namely: there are no [quote] ‘reports’ [endquote] to the effect of me being a woman-basher (let alone a ‘perverted’ one).

So, here is your opportunity before you go on and make it even worse for yourself than you already have: if you can produce those so-called reports of [quote] ‘woman bashing’ [endquote] then I will indeed address them, as demanded so emphatically by you, and ... um ... then ‘get tapping NOW!’.

Note well, this is a one-off opportunity because, as I enunciated unambiguously in Message No. 11315, there is no way I am going to rebut/ refute each and every one of all that made-up stuff about a phantom ‘Richard’ who has no existence outside of passionate imagination. Vis.:

#11315
From: richard.actualfreedom
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:22 am
Subject: Re: IF
[...].
Also, for those wanting me to rebut/ refute all that made-up stuff about a phantom ‘Richard’ who has no existence outside of passionate imagination, do you realise I would have a full-time job monitoring the entire world-wide-web, on a daily basis, seeking out all the stuff peoples are making up and then typing out rebuttals – searching through all my writings, in the process of doing so, for applicable quotes complete with references – and then uploading onto a special ‘Rebuttals Page’ section on The Actual Freedom Trust website?

Do you further realise that this would invite even more stuff being made up about me (once the perpetrators cotton on to the fact that all they have to do is tap out anything they like on whatever forum they choose) as experience has shown that rebuttals – setting the record straight – beget evermore made-up stuff to be rebutted? [...]. Richard to Rick, 21 February 2012

I would suggest accessing that URL as there is both a demonstration and further explanation regarding the entire matter.

Lastly, if you do not produce those so-called reports of [quote] ‘woman bashing’ [endquote] then by not doing so you are tacitly admitting, to all and sundry, they do not exist.

So, here is your one-off opportunity ... and you would be well-advised to not waste it. Richard to No. 5, 31 December 2012

RESPONDENT No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’): stop fantasising. the only people who ever ... [...snip...].

RESPONDENT: These are my opinions.. and hopefully they are obvious (and not some skewed way of looking at things) but only been clouded by passions: [No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’) – is it possible at all to be no so vitriolic and yet communicate? This is a open question and it was me who posted to [No. 11] wondering if this kind of language is inevitable in providing the emphasis. You have some basis (even if they are not fully justifiable at this point – as they say there is no smoke without the fire – your mails are smoky and there might be some fire somewhere, maybe a disproportionate spark that is unchecked, for which Richard is not providing extinguisher but only seems to amplify it, for more than a decade).

RICHARD: G’day No 19, If, as you say, your co-respondent has [quote] ‘some basis’ [endquote] then why is he not taking advantage of this one-off opportunity to produce that so-called ‘basis’?

Put differently: if, as you say, [quote] ‘there is no smoke without the fire’ [endquote] then why is your co-respondent not taking advantage of this one-off opportunity to produce that so-called ‘fire’?

Alternatively: if, as you say, there might be [quote] ‘a disproportionate spark’ [endquote] that is unchecked, for which Richard is not providing extinguisher, then why is your co-respondent not taking advantage of this one-off opportunity to produce that so-called ‘spark’?

Incidentally, as far as I am concerned your co-respondent can be as potty-mouthed as he wishes as his liberal use of expletives – verbal abuse in lieu of substance – only goes to emphasise his total lack of so-called ‘basis’ and/or ‘fire’ and/or ‘spark’.

RESPONDENT to No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’): You will serve your case, if you could rephrase things in a better way, even if Richard doesn’t address them well, others might be able to see your points better.

RICHARD: You may very well find, upon a re-read of the above, that Richard is indeed addressing your co-respondent’s [quote] ‘things’ [endquote] by making a one-off exception, in regards to not rebutting/ refuting each and every one of all that made-up stuff about a phantom ‘Richard‘, and is providing a one-off opportunity for him to produce those so-called ‘reports’ of [quote] ‘woman bashing’ [endquote] for me to respond to, in detail, by return post.

Therefore, rather than encouraging your co-respondent to merely [quote] ‘rephrase things in a better way’ [endquote], might I suggest you instead encourage him to take advantage of this one-off opportunity and produce that so-called ‘basis’ and/or ‘fire’ and/or ‘spark’ – his so-called ‘reports’ of so-called ‘woman bashing’ – for me to address?

And in making this suggestion I will draw your attention to the fact that [No. 3], for instance, has already encouraged him (in Message No. 12xxx) to not fritter away this opportunity to set the record straight and to instead produce these so-called ‘reports’ of so-called ‘woman bashing’. Vis.:

• [Respondent No. 3 to No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)]: ‘Please do not fritter away this opportunity to set the record straight, kindly produce the evidence as is requested.’ [endquote].

In fact, if more people were to follow No. 3’s lead and also encourage your co-respondent to not fritter away this one-off opportunity to set the record straight then the sooner this matter can be addressed, by me, in detail by return post.

RESPONDENT to No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’): I understand that it is easier said than done, but I have found that this exercise is helpful for myself, if I can afford the time and energy and attention span and techniques – which Richard seems to have at his disposal, but many of us don’t seem to have.

RICHARD: If I might point out? All of my [quote] ‘time and energy and attention span and techniques’ [endquote] are being diverted away from discussing what this forum is set-up for – I was half-way through writing my response to Claudiu’s email on buddhistic practises vis-a-vis the actualism method (his Message No. 12126 from 27 Dec 2012) when your co-respondent cut short his ‘back after the New Year’ break (Message No. 12xxx) on Dec 30 with his re-ignited vitriol (‘WTF? you arrogant bastard!’) – and with you encouraging him to merely [quote] ‘rephrase things in a better way’ [endquote], rather than having him actually produce those so-called ‘reports’ of so-called ‘woman bashing’ for me to respond to in detail, all of my [quote] ‘time and energy and attention span and techniques’ [endquote] may very well continue to thus be diverted away.

RESPONDENT: Richard – somehow your communications in the forums have seen a hostile reception from a few, blame it on the ontological nature of the being that normal people are or ontological nature of non-being that you claim to be.

RICHARD: I fail to comprehend how my making a one-off exception, in regards to not rebutting/ refuting each and every one of all that made-up stuff about a phantom ‘Richard’, and providing a one-off opportunity for your co-respondent to produce those so-called ‘reports’ of so-called ‘woman bashing’, for me to respond to in detail, has seen [quote] ‘a hostile reception from a few’ [endquote].

RESPONDENT: Your not needing humility with which we cover our pride gives us an appearance that you are proud (which I have tried to communicate in my earlier mails that your words appear to be grandiose viewed from here, but which seems to have been killed by your analytic dissecting knife which is too sharp for the jelly-o points that we try to make).

RICHARD: Once again, I fail to comprehend how my making a one-off exception, in regards to not rebutting/ refuting each and every one of all that made-up stuff about a phantom ‘Richard’, and providing a one-off opportunity for your co-respondent to produce those so-called ‘reports’ of so-called ‘woman bashing’, for me to respond to in detail, would inspire you to say that it [quote] ‘gives us an appearance that you are proud’ [endquote].

RESPONDENT: I am not sure if this is an effective way of communication to achieve your own goals.

RICHARD: Whereas I am quite sure that your [quote] ‘effective way of communication’ [endquote] – that is, encouraging your co-respondent to [quote] ‘rephrase things in a better way’ [end quote] – will result in you being able to [quote] ‘achieve your own goals’ [endquote], of having actualism/ actual freedom continue to be subject to (faux) vilification, as encouragement like that is grist for his mill. Vis.:

[Respondent to No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H‘)]: ‘You will serve your case, if you could rephrase things in a better way, even if Richard doesn’t address them well, *others might be able to see your points better*’ [emphasis added].

‘Tis plain to see what your agenda is, No. 19, and it is indicative of the climate of this forum (where the victim receives zilch support and the abuser is encouraged) that you be appointed a moderator by the list-owner (aka ‘actual-buddhist-george’) after he pulled a power-trip on the other moderator (revoking his function) for attempting to moderate the abuser.

Nevertheless, and despite that preposterous climate, the fact remains that if your co-respondent does not produce his so-called ‘reports’ of so-called ‘woman bashing’ then, by not doing so, he is tacitly admitting to all and sundry they have no existence outside of his passionate imagination.

Regards, Richard.

January 2 2013

Re: it is impossible to marry Actualism and Buddhism

RICHARD to List Owner: [...]. Put succinctly, my clearly expressed wishes, regarding personal security and physical safety, were posted at 7:25 am on Sunday May 10, 2009. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘(...). I will also take this opportunity to ask the owner of this list (not the moderators for it appears one of them is corrupt) to delete every post/every instance where that name appears’. (Message xx87)

I would suggest accessing that URL as there is both a clear demonstration and further explanation regarding this whole sordid matter. (Richard to List-Owner, 1 January 2013)

RESPONDENT: [...]. Since I don’t read every mails word by word, I have missed Richard’s request that he quotes below.

RICHARD: G’day No. 19, I recalled your above words having caught my eye whilst reading what you wrote a little later on in another email: Vis.:

• [Respondent to No. 12]: ‘(...) I guess I wasn’t very active those days and might have missed all this though some vague memory of this exists.. if necessary I can do some digging later on if it is warranted’. (Message No. 12xxx).

As the ‘Yahoo Groups’ archives show that you posted 35 emails, during the 14 day period in which my Message No. xx87 appeared, it is more than passing strange you say you missed it through not being very active those days as that rate of posting averages out at 2 & 1/2 posts per day.

Here are the message numbers, from May 5 through to May 19, 2009, for the emails you posted over that fortnight (with my Message No. xx87 email inserted in squared-brackets for easy reference). Vis.:

(Tue May 5, 2009): xx42; xx43; xx49; xx73; xx06; xx07;

xx11; xx12; xx17; xx19; xx20; xx70; xx71; xx77; xx81;

xx82; xx83; xx95; xx29; xx37; [...xx87...]; xx95; xx35;

xx36; xx38; xx55; xx56; xx59; xx02; xx05; xx06; xx72;

xx74; xx88; xx98; xx05: (Tue May 19, 2009).

Furthermore, as that Message No. xx87 email of mine is also the email in which I made the proposition of a personal meeting with ‘an outstanding fellow human being, well-known to this forum’ (the first time in 12 years of meeting someone from the internet), as well as being the email in which the expose of this forum’s well-known ‘hypocritical vilifier/ discreditor’ was first explained, it most certainly occasioned considerable discussion amongst various forum members.

So much so, in fact, that one or more of those three topics were the subject, or part-subject, of many posts which followed.

For instance (with some of your posts in squared-brackets inserted for reference):

(Sun May 10, 2009): xx88; xx89; xx90; xx93; xx94;

[... xx95 ...]; xx96; xx97; xx98; xx99; xx01; xx02; xx03;

xx04; xx06; xx08; xx09; xx12; xx13; xx14; xx15; xx16;

xx19; xx20; xx22; xx28; [... xx35 ...]; [... xx36 ...]; [... xx38 ...];

xx42; xx44; xx45; xx46; xx47; xx48; xx49; xx52; xx53;

[... xx55 ...]; [... xx56 ...]; xx58; [... xx59 ...]; xx61; xx67;

xx68; xx73: (Tue May 12, 2009)

As I have already mentioned, it is more than passing strange you say you missed my Message No. xx87 email wherein my my clearly expressed wishes, regarding personal security and physical safety, were posted. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘(...). I will also take this opportunity to ask the owner of this list (not the moderators for it appears one of them is corrupt) to delete every post/every instance where that name appears’. (Message xx87)

And, just for the record, here is the context for that request. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘(...) Here we have a known vilifier/discreditor assuring everyone that they know better than Richard (not to mention the directors protecting his safety) as to what exactly is sensible to ensure his continued survival.

Just think about the implications and ramifications of that, for a moment, given the evidence of history in regards assassinations of pioneers/ trail-blazers/ whistle-blowers/ leaders and the such-like.

Think of Mr. Mohandas Ghandi, for instance.

Think of Mr. Martin Luther King, for another.

Think of Mr. John Lennon, in fact (who merely sang ‘Give Peace A Chance’).

The list could go on and on, but that should be sufficient for the nonce.

Does everybody reading this now see how vital it is that the integrity of The Actual Freedom Trust web site remain inviolate?

And I ask this question because, once I am dead and gone, The Actual Freedom Trust web site, with its (legally) registered imprimatur, will remain the only guaranteed-to-be-accurate repository of authentic reports/ descriptions/ explanations of an actual freedom from the human condition’.  (Message xx87 Richard to No. 4, 10 May 2009)

None of this jogs your memory?

Regards, Richard.

January 2 2013

Subject: Re: it is impossible to marry Actualism and Buddhism

RICHARD to No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’): [...]. So be it ... proceed at your own peril.

RESPONDENT No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’): cut the crap and address those reports NOW! to wit: ‘that youre a perverted woman bashing ...

RICHARD to No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’): I am stopping you right there solely for the sake of demonstrating something you have quite evidentially overlooked ... namely: there are no [quote] ‘reports’ [endquote] to the effect of me being a woman-basher (let alone a ‘perverted’ one). So, here is your opportunity before you go on and make it even worse for yourself than you already have: if you can produce those so-called ‘reports’ of [quote] ‘woman bashing’ [endquote] then I will indeed address them, as demanded so emphatically by you, and ... um ... then ‘get tapping NOW!’. Note well, this is a one-off opportunity because, as I enunciated unambiguously in Message No. 11315, there is no way I am going to rebut/refute each and every one of all that made-up stuff about a phantom ‘Richard’ who has no existence outside of passionate imagination. [...]. Richard to No. 5, 31 December 2012

RESPONDENT to No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’): [...] You have some basis (even if they are not fully justifiable at this point – as they say there is no smoke without the fire – your mails are smoky and there might be some fire somewhere, maybe a disproportionate spark that is unchecked, for which Richard is not providing extinguisher but only seems to amplify it, for more than a decade).

RICHARD: If, as you say, your co-respondent has [quote] ‘some basis’ [endquote] then why is he not taking advantage of this one-off opportunity to produce that so-called ‘basis’?

RESPONDENT: Two normal, well meaning people from two different continents met you at two different times, and they seem to have been less than impressed.

RICHARD: G’day No. 19, I am having some difficulty comprehending your answer to my query: which two [quote] ‘normal, well meaning people’ [end quote] are you referring to?

For instance, are you referring to the person who only recently unconditionally withdrew (in Message No. 11928) everything he had ever written about me?

If so, then why do you describe him as being a [quote] ‘well meaning’ [endquote] person when he is, quite evidentially, an ill-meaning poltroon who has deceived all of you with his made up stuff? (See, for example, Message No. 12110).

And are you referring to the person who also deceived you all by lying about her identity (as in ghoulishly impersonating my deceased second wife) so as to thereby conduct, with malice aforethought, the most massive invasion of privacy this forum has ever seen such as to put into jeopardy both my personal security and my physical safety?

If so, then why do you describe her as being a [quote] ‘well meaning’ [endquote] person when she is, quite evidentially, an ill-meaning recreant who has deceived all of you with her made up stuff? (See, for example, Message No. 10780).

Incidentally, I can agree with your [quote] ‘normal’ [endquote] description because to utilise the relative anonymity of the world wide web and malign, libel and defame is quite a normal action/ behaviour/ deed in the real-world.

RESPONDENT: Whether it is their fault or your fault, it taints what we thought can be a worthy aim.

RICHARD: Again I am having some difficulty comprehending your answer to my query: how can the outright lies of those two caitiffs even begin to taint what you, all-inclusively, describe as being what [quote] ‘we’ [endquote] thought can be a worthy aim?

RESPONDENT: This is the spark.

RICHARD: Oh? So all it takes, then, to create such a ‘spark’ in your mind is the lies and deceits of those two nidderings (albeit reinforced by the lies and deceits of a couple of opportunistic, and similarly pusillanimous, accomplices)?

RESPONDENT: And the smoke is all those mails after that claiming many things that differed from your original accounts.

RICHARD: I see. And the fact that I unambiguously and repeatedly pointed out how those [quote] ‘many things’ [endquote] were nothing but made-up stuff, about that phantom ‘Richard’ of passionate imagination, means absolutely nothing to you, eh?

Furthermore, when I publicly declare myself to be an innocent man (and a war-veteran at that) then it must be me who is lying, I presume?

May I ask? Do you really think I would lie to my fellow human beings about such an easily verifiable thing as the physical death of someone relatively well-known in the small community in which she had lived? (Please bear in mind that, in a modern western society, all births, deaths and marriages are a matter of government record).

Moreover, have you never heard of the Latin phrase ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ (‘false in one, false in all’)? Vis.:

[quote]: ‘A Roman legal principle indicating that a witness who willfully falsifies one matter is not credible on any matter.

The underlying motive for attorneys to impeach opposing witnesses in court: the principle discredits the rest of their testimony if it is without corroboration’. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(F)).

For instance, the person who deceived you all, by lying about her identity (as in ghoulishly impersonating my deceased second wife), is surely demonstrating a classic case of ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’, eh?

Put differently: if, as you say, [quote] ‘there is no smoke without the fire’ [endquote] then why is your co-respondent not taking advantage of this one-off opportunity to produce that so-called ‘fire’?

RESPONDENT: I think he/she did produce the mail snippet from somebody you met.

RICHARD: Why do you say that you [quote] ‘think’ [endquote] your co-respondent did something? Did he, or did he not, do that?

If he did, then why did you not re-produce it, right here and now so there would have been something of substance to discuss? If he did not then why take the time to type that tergiversation out?

No. 19, do you not appreciate just what a grave charge it is – and with equally grave consequences – to publicly assert, over and again, that somebody is not only a (perverted) woman-basher but has attempted murder as well?

Or is all this just some kind of entertainment for you (as per your ‘Hotel California’ reference in Message No. 12282)?

*

RICHARD: Alternatively: if, as you say, there might be [quote] ‘a disproportionate spark’ [endquote] that is unchecked, for which Richard is not providing extinguisher, then why is your co-respondent not taking advantage of this one-off opportunity to produce that so-called ‘spark’?

RESPONDENT: see thee answer above.

RICHARD: What manner of an answer is it, to my specific query (as in clearly including these extra ‘disproportionate’, ‘is unchecked’ and ‘not providing extinguisher’ features), to merely and so non-specifically say [quote] ‘see thee answer above’ [endquote]?

Just what did you mean, then (when you chose to tell your co-respondent that there might be some fire somewhere, maybe a disproportionate spark that is unchecked, for which Richard is not providing extinguisher but only seems to amplify it), that my specific query can be answered, en passant almost, by a mere ‘see thee answer above’ referral?

Specifically:

1. What does ‘disproportionate’ mean to you (and why use it)?

2. How is it ‘unchecked’, to your mind, when the very email exchange you entered into is the one in which I provided a one-off opportunity for it to be checked (to use your phrasing)?

3. Similarly, how is ‘Richard is not providing extinguisher’, in your mind, when the very email exchange you entered into is the one in which I provided a one-off opportunity for it to be extinguished (to use your phrasing)?

4. Also, in what way is it that I ‘amplify it’, by your mind, when the very email exchange you entered into is the one in which I provided a one-off opportunity for it to not amplify (to use your phrasing)?

Please note I am endeavouring to find out why you, one of this forum’s two moderators, are encouraging the abuser to proliferate his abuse by telling him to [quote] ‘rephrase things in a better way’ [endquote] rather than carrying-out the list-owner’s clearly stated *expectation* when he revoked No. 24’s moderator status and appointed you co-owner of this group. Vis.:

[List-Owner]: ‘(...). Moderation privileges should be used only to remove spam or to delete messages which violate an individual’s right to privacy or safety.

I am revoking No. 24’s moderator status and appointing [Respondent] co-owner of this group in the *expectation* that he will better represent the principles above’. [emphasis added].

It is a bizarro-world where the victim receives zero support, regarding [quote] ‘privacy or safety’ [endquote], and the abuser is/the abusers are encouraged.

*

RICHARD: Incidentally, as far as I am concerned your co-respondent can be as potty-mouthed as he wishes as his liberal use of expletives – verbal abuse in lieu of substance – only goes to emphasise his total lack of so-called ‘basis’ and/or ‘fire’ and/or ‘spark’.

RESPONDENT to No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’): You will serve your case, if you could rephrase things in a better way, even if Richard doesn’t address them well, others might be able to see your points better.

RICHARD: You may very well find, upon a re-read of the above, that Richard is indeed addressing your co-respondent’s [quote] ‘things’ [endquote] by making a one-off exception, in regards to not rebutting/ refuting each and every one of all that made-up stuff about a phantom ‘Richard’, and is providing a one-off opportunity for him to produce those so-called ‘reports’ of [quote] ‘woman bashing’ [endquote] for me to respond to, in detail, by return post. Richard to Respondent, 1 January 2013

RESPONDENT: I didn’t quite understand why Richard chose a one off exception in this case.

RICHARD: Here is why I made a one-off exception (in regards to not rebutting/ refuting each and every one of all that made-up stuff about a phantom ‘Richard’) and provided a one-off opportunity:

[Richard to No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)]: ‘So be it ... proceed at your own peril’.

[Respondent No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)]: ‘cut the crap and address those reports NOW! to wit: ‘that youre a perverted woman bashing ...

[Richard to No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)]: ‘I am stopping you right there solely for the sake of demonstrating something you have quite evidentially overlooked ... namely: there are no [quote] ‘reports’ [endquote] to the effect of me being a woman-basher (let alone a ‘perverted’ one)’. Richard to No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’), 31 December 2012

I copy-pasted it from the top of this very email exchange we are having; did you not see that I am clearly stating the bleeding obvious (that there are no such ‘reports’)? Did you not also see that, by providing this one-off opportunity, I am clearly demonstrating that which is bleeding obvious (that there are no such ‘reports’)?

Here is what I wrote next (also copy-pasted from the top of this very email exchange we are having):

[Richard to No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)]: ‘So, here is your opportunity before you go on and make it even worse for yourself than you already have: if you can produce those so-called ‘reports’ of [quote] ‘woman bashing’ [endquote] then I will indeed address them, as demanded so emphatically by you, and ... um ... then ‘get tapping NOW!’. Richard to No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’), 31 December 2012

Has it escaped your notice that your co-respondent was unable to produce those so-called ‘reports’? Has it also escaped your notice that your co-respondent has, instead, told all and sundry that he was leaving this forum? Has it as well, then, escaped your notice that this entire charade is thus now over, finished, kaput? Vis.:

[Richard to Respondent]: ‘(...) the fact remains that if your co-respondent does not produce his so-called ‘reports’ of so-called ‘woman bashing’ then, by not doing so, he is tacitly admitting to all and sundry they have no existence outside of his passionate imagination’. Richard to Respondent, 1 January 2013

I will say it again for emphasis: this entire charade is now over, finished, kaput.

Regards, Richard.

January 4 2013

RICHARD: If, as you say, your co-respondent has [quote] ‘some basis’ [endquote] then why is he not taking advantage of this one-off opportunity to produce that so-called ‘basis’?

RESPONDENT: Two normal, well meaning people from two different continents met you at two different times, and they seem to have been less than impressed.

RICHARD: G’day No. 19, I am having some difficulty comprehending your answer to my query: which two [quote] ‘normal, well meaning people’ [end quote] are you referring to?

For instance, are you referring to the person who only recently unconditionally withdrew (in Message No. 11928) everything he had ever written about me?

If so, then why do you describe him as being a [quote] ‘well meaning’ [endquote] person when he is, quite evidentially, an ill-meaning poltroon who has deceived all of you with his made up stuff? (See, for example, Message No. 12110).

And are you referring to the person who also deceived you all by lying about her identity (as in ghoulishly impersonating my deceased second wife) so as to thereby conduct, with malice aforethought, the most massive invasion of privacy this forum has ever seen such as to put into jeopardy both my personal security and my physical safety?

If so, then why do you describe her as being a [quote] ‘well meaning’ [endquote] person when she is, quite evidentially, an ill-meaning recreant who has deceived all of you with her made up stuff? (See, for example, Message No. 10780).

Incidentally, I can agree with your [quote] ‘normal’ [endquote] description because to utilise the relative anonymity of the world wide web and malign, libel and defame is quite a normal action/ behaviour/ deed in the real-world.

RESPONDENT: Whether it is their fault or your fault, it taints what we thought can be a worthy aim.

RICHARD: Again I am having some difficulty comprehending your answer to my query: how can the outright lies of those two caitiffs even begin to taint what you, all-inclusively, describe as being what [quote] ‘we’ [endquote] thought can be a worthy aim?

RESPONDENT: This is the spark.

RICHARD: Oh? So all it takes, then, to create such a ‘spark’ in your mind is the lies and deceits of those two nidderings (albeit reinforced by the lies and deceits of a couple of opportunistic, and similarly pusillanimous, accomplices)?

RESPONDENT: And the smoke is all those mails after that claiming many things that differed from your original accounts.

RICHARD: I see. And the fact that I unambiguously and repeatedly pointed out how those [quote] ‘many things’ [endquote] were nothing but made-up stuff, about that phantom ‘Richard’ of passionate imagination, means absolutely nothing to you, eh?

Furthermore, when I publicly declare myself to be an innocent man (and a war-veteran at that) then it must be me who is lying, I presume?

May I ask? Do you really think I would lie to my fellow human beings about such an easily verifiable thing as the physical death of someone relatively well-known in the small community in which she had lived? (Please bear in mind that, in a modern western society, all births, deaths and marriages are a matter of government record).

Moreover, have you never heard of the Latin phrase ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ (‘false in one, false in all’)? Vis.:

[quote]: ‘A Roman legal principle indicating that a witness who willfully falsifies one matter is not credible on any matter.

The underlying motive for attorneys to impeach opposing witnesses in court: the principle discredits the rest of their testimony if it is without corroboration’. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(F)).

For instance, the person who deceived you all, by lying about her identity (as in ghoulishly impersonating my deceased second wife), is surely demonstrating a classic case of ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’, eh?

Put differently: if, as you say, [quote] ‘there is no smoke without the fire’ [endquote] then why is your co-respondent not taking advantage of this one-off opportunity to produce that so-called ‘fire’?

RESPONDENT: I think he/she did produce the mail snippet from somebody you met.

RICHARD: Why do you say that you [quote] ‘think’ [endquote] your co-respondent did something? Did he, or did he not, do that? If he did, then why did you not re-produce it, right here and now so there would have been something of substance to discuss? If he did not then why take the time to type that tergiversation out?

CLAUDIU: This is what [No. 19] was referring to. Here’s the progression ...

RICHARD to Claudiu: How do you know what [No. 19] was referring to when he was not sure himself (as in his ‘I think...’ phrasing)? In other words, why not let him answer my query?

CLAUDIU: [...snip five quotes...]. So, presumably the report [No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)] wishes you to address is Message 10778, written by [No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘A’)], and specifically, that paragraph that [No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)] quoted, no?

RICHARD to Claudiu: First, and given that you are asking me to presume something based upon your presumption about something which [No. 19] was not sure about (as in his ‘I think...’ phrasing) it would be more conducive to clarity in communication for him to do away with you having to presume that ... and, by extension, me. Richard to Claudiu, 3 January 2013

RESPONDENT: Richard, it so happens that Claudiu in this case extrapolated ‘i think’ in an appropriate fashion ...

RICHARD: G’day No. 19, Thank you for so promptly doing away with him having to presume that (and, by extension, me too).

RESPONDENT: ... your approach of making us work for every small detail ...

RICHARD: Ha ... it sure looks to me that Claudiu did the work, for those every small details, and not ‘us’, but maybe it was some sort of arcane labour you did which is not visible from here.

RESPONDENT: ... is less productive ...

RICHARD: Oh? What would be more productive, then, discussing ‘the mail snippet’ in absentia (i.e. from memory)?

RESPONDENT: ... (maybe to your advantage).

RICHARD: As I am already actually free from the human condition (and have been for 20+ years now) – and thus have nothing to gain – then in what way could anything I do in these email exchanges ever possibly be to my advantage?

RESPONDENT: [...]. Whatever it is, shall appreciate if you could answer the ‘above’ Claudiu’s mail ...

RICHARD: Are you aware that the above Message No. 10778, which message number Claudiu copy-pasted from [No. 5’s (Sock Puppet ‘H’)] post, was posted to this forum, on Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:50 pm, by none other than [No. 37 (Sock Puppet ‘I’)] himself?

The actual email being referred to – and therefore reliably with the original text intact word-by-word – is Message No. 10570, posted to this forum nearly a month earlier (on Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:58 pm), by ... um ... by Someone Uniquely Recognisable By Her Inglish.

RESPONDENT: ... (or do you need me to copy paste it because the word above is vague?).

RICHARD: As you are so obviously reluctant to provide the actual text yourself I will talk about it ‘in absentia’ after all: in reply to Respondent No. 24 writing about the benefits of actualism practice (‘an eventual improvement in well-being particularly as emotional carrot and stick beliefs were unraveled’ and ‘the reduction in inhibitions and increase in the delight of sensate experiencing is well worth the effort’ via the causal nature being found to be ‘based in factors relating to the instinctual passions’) she said that ‘de-conditioning oneself of the cultural and social mores (beliefs) is a very rewarding exercise’ and explained how she was doing that, even before she knew anything about actualism/ actual freedom, based mainly on her observations but also from reading and the understanding gained from creative writers and philosophers, psychologists and psychiatrists and so on.

She then said how it is extremely useful (‘helps in clearing fuzz’) and how it is ‘rewarding to examine oneself even more deeply – find out the redirection one’s instinctual passions receive via conditioning’. However, she said, she was sure that what was going on in actualism/ actual freedom (which she asserted was really only Peak Experiences and/or ASC’s renamed by me) was due to ‘lifting of *conditioning* a person’s *pure* instincts get exposed’ (her emphases). In that *pure* state of being, she said, the ‘goodness, lovely and peaceful instincts take over the opposite instincts’ because the very aim of the person, in trying to get into that state, is to ‘be good, lovely and peaceful’.

(None of that is, of course, what is really going on in actualism/ actual freedom but it is instructive to see how she makes sense of the reports/ descriptions/ explanations freely available on The Actual Freedom Trust website).

She then warned how that ‘extreme subjective state of being’ was, however, unstable because ‘the opposite instincts have the tendency to come to surface too’, and that this is why the ‘goodness, loveliness and peace does not last’ and thus that person ‘experiences receding of this state’. She went on to explain that ‘what happens in case of people who claim that they have been able to stabilize it is that they embrace a delusion where they keep on, consciously, harping on the good, lovely and peaceful, while unconsciously denying the appearance of opposite’ and then illustrated what she was explaining via two examples:

[Respondent No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘A’)]: ‘(...) whence they are angry, for example, but incapable now to either ‘feel’ it, recognize it, hence able to discern their own behaviour. For example, an AF partner may drag his partner of several years, through a 6 feet floor, to get her out of the bedroom into a sitting room ...’. [end quote].

I have cut it short there so as to better juxtapose what [No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘I’)] does with that second ‘for example’ scenario. Vis.:

[No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)]: ‘(...) i don’t see how horrifying your visitors by dragging a terrified woman across the floor from one room to another ...’. (Message No. 11682).

Do you see what [No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)] does by the addition of his completely fabricated ‘horrifying your visitors’ words into his version of that second ‘for example’ scenario?

At least one person did. Vis.:

[Respondent No. 00]: ‘The person who alleges seeing this assault, have they reported it to the police? I am an australian and under our laws such an assault does not need the victim to press charges, as it was witnessed. (...). i will call the queensland police and ask whether such a report has been lodged ...’. (Message No. 11690).

Here is their follow-up 31 minutes later. Vis.:

[Respondent No. 00]: ‘Ok, just got of the phone from the Queensland police, and as I suspected privacy laws do not allow for me to find out if these allegations have been reported. so here are the facts ....’. (Message No. 11691).

In other words, [No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)] turns the original ‘an AF partner may drag ...’ scenario into a (for example) ‘Richard did drag ...’ reality via his ‘horrifying your visitors’ words.

*

So, back to where this particular exchange started. Vis.:

[Richard]: Put differently: if, as you say, [quote] ‘there is no smoke without the fire’ [endquote] then why is your co-respondent not taking advantage of this one-off opportunity to produce that so-called ‘fire’?

[Respondent]: I think he/she did produce the mail snippet from somebody you met.

[Richard]: Do you now see why your co-respondent is not taking advantage of this one-off opportunity to produce that so-called ‘fire’?

Moreover, would you still say [quote] ‘you have some basis ...’ [endquote] to your co-respondent now?

Regards, Richard.


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