Actual Freedom – Mailing List ‘D’ Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence On Mailing List ‘D’

with Correspondent No. 43


June 18 2013

Re: Few humble words from Justine

RESPONDENT No. 37 (Sock Puppet ‘I’): If someone is posting from different continents, times can be different on different posts. There is nothing more to it than that. You have been fooling yourself.

RICHARD: The automated time-stamped dating on each numbered message indicates the moment the ‘Yahoo Groups’ software processes each incoming post and, virtually instantaneously, thereby makes them accessible to list-members. It has nothing to do with the varying time-zones of list-members on different continents.

Put differently, the instant you click ‘Send’ is virtually the same instant that fully-automated software processes it regardless of your physical location on the globe.

The so-called ‘time-zones’ are actually a measure of physical distance, longitudinally, from Greenwich, England, as this very moment is the same-same moment for everybody on the planet, the instant it happens, no matter what so-called ‘time’ has been assigned to it via the internationally agreed-upon navigational system of meridians (latitude and longitude) established a few centuries ago.

RESPONDENT: In groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/11324 it looks like No. 2 hit the reply button to a message that was already in his Gmail archive. His Gmail would be on a different time zone to the Yahoo Groups server.

RICHARD: G’day No. 43, What you are saying is virtually the same what my co-respondent said – i.e. that the time-stamps on different posts in this forum can be different due to being sent from ‘different continents’ (his ‘different continents’ = your ‘different time zone’ wording) – whereas it makes no difference in what ‘time-zone’/ on what ‘continent’ No. 2’s ‘Gmail archive’ was located, or whether he ‘hit the reply button’ or not, as the automated time-stamped dating on each of the *numbered online messages* in this forum indicates the moment ‘Yahoo Groups’ software processes each incoming post and, virtually instantaneously, thereby makes them accessible to list-members.

As all I have done, just above, is repeat my first paragraph, further above, then instead of going on and repeating the 2nd, the 3rd & the 4th, it may serve better to put it this way: actual time – as contrasted to the past—> present—> future time of the real-world (i.e. the world of the human psyche) – does not move.

There is a vast stillness here (in actuality).

Regards, Richard.

June 18 2013

Re: Few humble words from Justine

CLAUDIU: (Darned random buttons sending message before it’s ready.) Looking at the source email: [...]. A lot of the ‘X-...’ headers are added on after-the-fact (e.g. every computer that receives the email & forwards it along seems to add an ‘X-...’ header). In particular the ‘Date:’ header, which I presume was put there by No. 2’s email client, reads:

Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:26:54 +0530 ...

which would be 8:26pm – 3 minutes after the’8:23pm’ of the message he replied to. I’m still not too sure at all what email No. 2 was replying to, though, and again am frustrated at the large amount of deleted messages on this list. (Message 14101)

RESPONDENT: His original message was never sent to this list and was therefore never deleted. The original was probably sent to actual_ freedom_un-moderated, then three minutes later he added his after thought and cc’d it to this list. (Message 14103)

RESPONDENT: No, the original was sent to two destinations: actualism@googlegroups.com, postactualism@yahoogroups.com. (Message 14105)

See https://groups.google.com/forum/?from groups#!forum/actualism It’s the last item ever sent to that group.

[Addendum]: Cleaner URL – http://groups.google.com/group/actualism (Message 14106)

RESPONDENT No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’): stay silent folks, youve wasted enough time here. these nutters dont deserve your time. (Message 14107)

RESPONDENT: Maybe not, but No. 2 does not deserve to have Richard’s idiotic and uninformed innuendo stand as the last word on the matter. There was a rational, down to earth explanation all along, but if everybody relied on Richard’s misconstruction of events, nobody would ever know it. They’d be left with the impression that No. 2 had done something devious.

By going from this: groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/11324 to this: groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/14089

Richard concocts innuendo about a fellow human being without any factual basis at all. Isn’t it supposed to be only ‘feeling beings’ who do that due to their passionate imagination, while the ‘actually free’ are free from all such distortions? To be as uncharitable with Richard as Richard is with others: loco in uno, loco in omnibus. (Message 14108)

RICHARD: G’day No. 43, Thank you for solving the mystery of the email written in reply to a one-word post which bore a time-stamped dating registering it as having been posted 5 hours and 27 minutes *later* than its reply.

I am, of course, referring to No. 2’s infamous ‘Beware’ email, posted at the ‘Google Groups’ forum on Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:23:52 +0530, which has been sitting there in plain view, to those peoples subscribed, for the past 16 months at this URL: http://groups.google.com/group/actualism/ browse_thread/thread/82391d6795ff1e83

Vis.:

From: [Respondent No. 2]
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:23:52 +0530
Local: Wed, Feb 22 2012 12:53 am
Subject: [No. 00] and watsonholly (and possibly others) sock-puppets of Richard & Associates.

Beware.

I also appreciate you alerting your fellow list-members to the fact that No. 2 did not only send that so-called ‘sock-puppets of Richard & Associates’ warning to this ‘Yahoo Groups’ forum (in #11324) but that he also conducted a well-orchestrated campaign ... a (mini) mass-mailout, so to speak, to more than a few online forums.

(Loco in uno, loco in omnibus = Here, there and everywhere).

I further appreciate your due-diligence because I had first alerted those interested to something fishy about it, at the following URL, nearly 16 months ago – Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:29 pm – via the word ‘(miraculously?)’ but nobody took any notice.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/11434

Look for the section immediately before these words (about 3/4 of the way through the above post):

• [Richard]: ‘If it were not for the fact they are messing with other peoples’ minds – and in a really big way (as in No. 15’s ‘agonising doubt’, for instance, and his ‘postactualism’ recovery list) as well – it would indeed be, as you [No. 3] said much further above, all quite farcical’.

Now, of course there never was anything ‘miraculous’ about it – for there is indeed, as you say, a rational explanation – as the post No. 2 had responded to (the email with the one word ‘Beware’ in it which he had sent 2 minutes earlier) has been sitting there all this while at ‘Google Groups’ forum. Just as his follow-up post (his ‘here, there and everywhere’ email) has been as well.

Vis.:

From: [Respondent No. 2]
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:25:41 +0530
Local: Wed, Feb 22 2012 12:55 am
Subject: Re: [No. 00] and watsonholly (and possibly others) sock-puppets of Richard & Associates.

There was a smithexxx also, and I don’t know who is A...r.

>On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 8:23 PM, [Respondent No. 2] wrote: Beware.

And, just for the record, here is what he sent to the ‘Yahoo Groups’ un-moderated forum (with its time-stamped dating showing it arrived a minute earlier than his ‘Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:56 pm’ post to this forum).

Vis.:

#439
From: [Respondent No. 2]
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:55 pm
Subject: Re: [No. 00] and watsonholly (and possibly others) sock-puppets of Richard & Associates.

There was a smithexxx also, and I don’t know who is A...r.

>On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 8:23 PM, [Respondent No. 2] wrote: Beware.

Now that you have got everyone’s attention this is an apt moment to examine his so-called ‘sock-puppets of Richard & Associates’ warning and expose it for the crock that it is.

First and foremost, by the term ‘Richard & Associates’ [No. 2] is referring to an acronym he and his ilk used both on this forum and The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list (which is sometimes referred to as the ‘Topica-List’) ... namely: ‘RPV’ (aka ‘Richard-Peter-Vineeto’).

In other words, he is warning those peoples of the ‘Bash Richard/Trash Actualism’ persuasion that those four names and/or aliases (and possibly others) are none other than ‘RPV’ doing the very activity he and his ilk are indulging in ... sock-puppetry running rampant.

Now, as I know for a fact that neither myself nor Peter and Vineeto have ever posted anything online under any name other than those, our given/legal names, it is patently obvious [No. 2] is pulling a stunt with his so-called ‘sock-puppets of Richard & Associates’ warning – attempting to feed doubt into gullible/ impressionable minds – and, what is more, he knows that we three know that.

For instance, and as already posted earlier (in #13958), I personally know that ‘[No. 00]’ (posting as <email ID withheld>) is not a ‘sock-puppet of Richard & Associates’ – she was quite up-front, online, about having met in-person – as that is both her birth-certificate name and the only email ID she used.

(A sock-puppet has to be posting, either simultaneously or successively, as two or more Internet Aliases – and, strictly speaking, interacting as if two or more distinct people – in order to qualify for that epithet).

In regards to ‘A...r’: [No. 15] has already addressed that nearly 16 months ago at ‘Google Groups’ forum.

Vis.:

From: [Respondent No. 15]
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 08:06:22 +1000
Local: Wed, Feb 22 2012 8:06 am
Subject: [No. 00] and watsonholly (and possibly others) sock-puppets of Richard & Associates.

A...r and Claudio are both from the DhO google.com.au/search?q=site:dharmaoverground.org+<email ID withheld>
I think you’re spot on about [No. 00] and Holly though.
Such bizarre games they play. I just don’t get it.
[No. 15]

As for the persona [No. 2] refers to as ‘smithexxx’ (subscribed to this forum as ‘<email ID withheld>’; Joined: Jan 29, 2012; and currently designated as ‘bouncing’): as there are only three posts in total (#10970 on Feb 12; #10984 on Feb 12; #11066 on Feb 16), and the second one makes it clear it be nobody known to me, there is no way that ‘smithexxx’ is a ‘sock-puppet of Richard & Associates’.

Which, of course, leaves only that ‘watsonholly51’ persona (the poster of that infamous ‘Would you divulge the affair ...’ email) whom I also, of course, know for a fact to not be a ‘sock-puppet of Richard & Associates’ (i.e. ‘RPV’).

But first a short explanatory word: the fact [No. 2] included both [No. 00] and A...r (bone fide people) shows that, in his mind, any poster who is not of that ‘Bash Richard/Trash Actualism’ mould is, perforce, a ‘sock-puppet of Richard & Associates’ ... and by doing so readily displays the same instinctual ‘us & them’ mentality as [No. 4] has also displayed (in #12742 for instance).

(Incidentally there is no ‘us vs. them’ operating here – here in this actual world, the sensate world, the world of the senses – as we are all fellow human beings here (in actuality).

Ergo, have one of his ilk post a (seemingly) pro-Richard email – as in, hot on the heels of his so-called ‘sock-puppets of Richard & Associates’ warning – using some appropriate (female) Internet Alias and an impressionable reader will obligingly absorb any subliminal suggestion, conveyed salaciously in the text, without even noticing having done so.

A salacious suggestion such as, of course, the word ‘affair’ (see the dictionary definitions #14096) in that infamous ‘Would you divulge the affair ...’ post (the email with that quaint ‘Would you ...’ wording rather than the regular ‘Will you ...’ vernacular).

As an aside: any bona fide person genuinely posting in a supportive manner would not be so crass as to ask me such a blatantly obvious prompt-style query in the first place and, even more to the point, for it to be a bona fide person familiar to me – as in (and purely as an illustration only) some other associate newly posting – who intimately knows via this very familiarity what actually happened, during my sojourn in India, it would never even occur to them to use the word ‘affair’ as it is simply not the case/ not what happened/ not in accord with facts and actuality.

And as an entirely different aside: you were quite ready to proffer a ‘move right along, folks, nothing to see here’ explanation for this very topic only recently re-raised in my June 12, 2013 post (#13958).

Vis.:

#14089
From: [Respondent]
Date: Sat Jun 15, 2013 1:30 pm
Subject: Re: Few humble words from Justine

• [Respondent]: One explanation for [No. 2]’s ‘beware’ message which needs no miraculous prescience, conspiracy or complicity is that watsonholly51 was active in the actual_freedom_unmoderated group before he/she appeared here.

Now, what is particularly noteworthy is that you subscribed to this forum on Jan 13, 2010, and yet the following are the first two posts from you in all that while.

Vis.:

#14078
From: [Respondent]
Date: Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:24 pm
Subject: Re: ok Andrew how about you answer these simple questions

• [Andrew]: c’est un grand trou noir [...].
• [Respondent]: Careful here. Escaping one black hole you might fall into another.

*

#1408
 From: [Respondent]
Date: Fri Jun 14, 2013 11:04 pm
Subject: Re: ok Andrew how about you answer these simple questions

• [Andrew]: 10-4 Warning noted. reverse thrust disengaged, moment of being alive appreciated.
cheers stranger.
• [Respondent]: Same :)

And, of course, your further above ‘explanation for [No. 2]’s beware message’ was your third post.

Hmm ... what could have prompted you to start posting 3 years and 5 months after subscribing ... to have a chat about the (potential) danger of falling into felicity and innocuity upon escaping that black hole, perchance?

And the timing of your entree into active discussion, after all those years, is also a trifle intriguing to observe inasmuch a pattern may, or may not, be in the early stages of developing.

To explain: shortly after ‘[No. 4]’ left the building, upon being publicly exposed, ‘[No. 6 (Sock-puppet ‘MJ’)]’ stepped up onto the stage.

After ‘[No. 6 (Sock-puppet ‘MJ’)]’ stepped down, upon having exposed herself in public, ‘[Respondent]’ emerges blinking in the footlights (after 41 months lurking in the dark), spots the blackhole doggerel, issues a dire warning about falling into peace-on-earth, and latches onto that topic re-raised only two days before (in my June 12, 2013 post (#13958).

Just who is going to take centre-stage next, one wonders, perhaps ‘dogs-breath’ will step forward and, maybe, ‘tim-tams’ or it even mayhap that ‘toss-em-over’ will leap into the lime-light.

‘Tis so unrewarding a career-choice, defending the indefensible, that it is quite amazing such peoples can still be popping out of the woodwork, after all those years of failure after failure in trying to stop the spread of peace-on-earth in our lifetimes, with hope springing anew in their hearts that they alone will succeed where all those other status-quo advocates have failed.

*

So, back from those asides, the only thing remaining is to ascertain just what the point was to [No. 2]’s well-orchestrated mail-out: knowing full well the moderators were primed to delete any post containing a certain *first* name, even, the inclusion of the full name ensured an attention-grabbing deletion ... but not before that salacious word ‘affair’ was subtly implanted into suitably prepped minds ... such as by the following pompous paternalism posted only 5 days previously.

Vis.:

#11075
From: [Respondent No. 2]
Date: Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:30 am
Subject: Evidence, was Re: 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. [...].

Again, thank you for alerting your fellow list-members to [No. 2]’s ‘loco in uno, loco in omnibus’ mail-out.

Regards, Richard.

June 18 2013

Re: Few humble words from Justine

RESPONDENT No. 37 (Sock Puppet ‘I’): If someone is posting from different continents, times can be different on different posts. There is nothing more to it than that. You have been fooling yourself.

RICHARD: The automated time-stamped dating on each numbered message indicates the moment the ‘Yahoo Groups’ software processes each incoming post and, virtually instantaneously, thereby makes them accessible to list-members. It has nothing to do with the varying time-zones of list-members on different continents.

Put differently, the instant you click ‘Send’ is virtually the same instant that fully-automated software processes it regardless of your physical location on the globe.

The so-called ‘time-zones’ are actually a measure of physical distance, longitudinally, from Greenwich, England, as this very moment is the same-same moment for everybody on the planet, the instant it happens, no matter what so-called ‘time’ has been assigned to it via the internationally agreed-upon navigational system of meridians (latitude and longitude) established a few centuries ago.

RESPONDENT: In groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/11324 it looks like No. 2 hit the reply button to a message that was already in his Gmail archive. His Gmail would be on a different time zone to the Yahoo Groups server.

RICHARD: What you are saying is virtually the same what my co-respondent said – i.e. that the time-stamps on different posts in this forum can be different due to being sent from ‘different continents’ (his ‘different continents’ = your ‘different time zone’ wording) – whereas it makes no difference in what ‘time-zone’/ on what ‘continent’ No. 2’s ‘Gmail archive’ was located, or whether he ‘hit the reply button’ or not, as the automated time-stamped dating on each of the *numbered online messages* in this forum indicates the moment ‘Yahoo Groups’ software processes each incoming post and, virtually instantaneously, thereby makes them accessible to list-members.

RESPONDENT: You can sit there arrogantly asserting that it ‘makes no difference’ all you like, but you’re wrong.

RICHARD: G’day No. 43, I am neither ‘asserting’ anything (let alone arrogantly) nor ‘wrong’ in pointing out to my co-respondent – in direct response to his ‘if someone is posting from different continents times can be different on different posts’ – the fact that the automated time-stamped dating on each of the *numbered online messages in this forum* indicates the moment ‘Yahoo Groups’ software processes each incoming post and, virtually instantaneously, thereby makes them accessible to list-members.

RESPONDENT: If you actually want to understand what happened, here is the key fact, take it or leave it:

RICHARD: I was not discussing [quote] ‘what happened’ [endquote] with my co-respondent but, rather, what happens when anybody located at whatever place on this globe clicks ‘Send’ as an engaged response to his ‘if someone is posting from different continents times can be different on different posts’ words.

You are now talking about something else (something other than his very own words, at the top of this page, which is what my words are an engaged and direct response to).

RESPONDENT: The date stamp on [No. 2]’s original message (the one he was replying to) was not inserted by Yahoo Groups, it was inserted by his email client software (Gmail).

RICHARD: No, the automated time-stamped dating on [No. 2]’s ‘Beware’ email, posted at the ‘Google Groups’ forum on Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:23:52 +0530, indicates the moment ‘Google Groups’ software processed his incoming email and, virtually instantaneously, thereby made his post accessible to the list-members.

RESPONDENT: If you need more help to grasp this, try reading Claudiu’s messages 14100 and 14101, and if that doesn’t work, quiz him about it.

RICHARD: I have already read Claudiu’s messages – I was reading them as they were coming in (even had to wait for his ‘darned random buttons sending message before it’s ready’ post to read the rest of what he had started in #14100 – and there is nothing for me to quiz him about.

*

Look, for what it is worth, I used to be an ISP myself years ago – albeit in a small way – owning a (nowadays difficult-to-obtain) block of IP addresses, and ran both a web-server and a mail-server for a number of years on a net-worked computer system in my home.

I have mentioned this before ... for example (from July 05 2000):

• [Richard]: [...] a computer technician assessed my set-up yesterday with the result that entire system is going to be stripped down and revamped in a few days time (I am getting Windows 2000 Server installed to replace the ailing NT Server 4.0 that requires too much attention to keep The Actual Freedom Trust Web Page on-line and the Mail Server operating). Which means I will be head down and tail up formatting and re-loading all my hard-drives from scratch with all the many and varied programmes ... maybe twelve to twenty four hours off-line.

I do enjoy fiddling with computers as much as I enjoy writing ... they are amazing instruments. (Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 7, 5 July 2000).

Another example (from July 10 2003):

• [Co-Respondent]: [...] to arrive to the point by our self to alter or change our brain, may be dangerous also.

• [Richard]: In what way is it ‘dangerous’ to become free from the human condition? I am neither in gaol nor a psychiatric institution; I can orient myself in space and time and navigate from point A to point B; I can defend myself when necessary by circumstances; I feed, clothe and house myself, paying all my bills on time; I make contingency plans to meet projected situations; I manage four net-worked computers, an internet domain, a web page, a mail server, and so on, without any prior experience or training; I write millions of words meaningfully strung together in sentences and paragraphs ... and, most importantly, I am neither a danger to myself or to others (which is the very first thing any psychiatrist/psychologist ascertains).

As this has been the situation for over a decade your prognosis is totally invalid. (Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 44a, 10 July 2003)

I even wrote about it on this forum (on May 12, 2009):

#5467
From: richard.actualfreedom
Date: Tue May 12, 2009 3:54 am
Subject: Re: Internet Anonymity

[...snip...].

• [Respondent No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘S’)]: P.S. [...] Charlie Bragg was an alias (but don’t believe that of course) and Skyebellau was too (but don’t believe that either). Maybe I really am [No. 53 (Actual Freedom List)] but wtf does it matter ...

• [Richard]: It matters this way: [...snip...].

Having been an ISP myself (albeit in a small way) I am well aware of the detailed information sitting behind emails. The police force in this country are well-versed in tracing email addresses (child porn, for instance). The police also have extraordinary powers to access information civilians cannot.

[...snip...]. As I already said, in another context, this is not a child’s game; you are out there playing with the big boys and girls, now, and in the adult world grown-up laws apply. [...snip...]. (List D, No. 5, 12 May 2009).

Ain’t life grand!

Regards, Richard.

June 19 2013

Re: Few humble words from Justine

RICHARD: I was not discussing [quote] ‘what happened’ [endquote] with my co-respondent but, rather, what happens when anybody located at whatever place on this globe clicks ‘Send’ as an engaged response to his ‘if someone is posting from different continents times can be different on different posts’ words.

RESPONDENT: Why were you talking about that ...

RICHARD: G’day No. 43, I was talking about that because that is what my co-respondent was talking about.

Vis.:

#14088
From: [Respondent No. 37]
Date: Sat Jun 15, 2013 12:28 pm
Subject: Re: Few humble words from Justine

• [Respondent No. 37]: If someone is posting from different continents, times can be different on different posts. There is nothing more to it than that. You have been fooling yourself.

RESPONDENT: And what he wrote there, in that above post, is not the reason why the ‘8:23 PM’ time-stamp, in the text of the post in question (#11324), is 5 hours and 27 minutes later than the ‘2:56 pm’ time-stamp in its date-field. (Message 14136)

RICHARD: The reason why that ‘8:23 PM’ time-stamp is there, in the text of that email, is because that is the time-stamp the ‘Google Groups’ soft-ware automatically generated when [No. 2] replied to his own post – the one with the single-word ‘Beware’ as text – on ‘Google Groups’ forum at 8:25 PM (2 minutes later).

(And when he cross-posted that 2nd email from ‘Google Groups’ forum to ‘Yahoo Groups’ forum that ‘8:23 PM’ time-stamp, in the text of that email, came right along with it).

As I copy-pasted both of those ‘Google Groups’ messages into my earlier email (#14129), posted 9 hours & 5 minutes before you posted this one (#14136), I had assumed you would already be cognisant of this.

However, if you have not read it yet then please do as you will find that I begin it by saying ‘Thank you for solving the mystery of the email ...’.

Because I do indeed appreciate you locating that source email and bringing it to the attention of your fellow list-members.

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