Actual Freedom ~ Commonly Raised Objections

RESPONDENT: ... in those terms [a turn of phrase for something hard to explain] it’s tricky to me also, others may not care less.

RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to present the three questions sequentially ...

RESPONDENT: Where did I say I was discussing your three questions?

RICHARD: Here is the sequence (copy-pasted from above):

• [Richard]: ‘So you know from first-hand experience that it is a fact you got angry; that friend of yours knows from first-hand experience it is a fact he got angry; each and every one of those people getting angry knows from first-hand experience it is a fact they are angry?
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Now here it becomes tricky.
• [Richard]: ‘It is not tricky at all ...
• [Respondent]: ‘Not to you, but to No. 89 it’s tricky (also used as a turn of phrase for something hard to explain), in those terms it’s tricky to me also, others may not care less’. [endquote].

Do you see that I asked my co-respondent a three-part question (in the context of the three previously answered straightforward questions further above)? If so, do you also see that my co-respondent replied to that three-part question by saying that it (the e-mail exchange in general) becomes tricky there (at that part of the exchange)? If so, do you further see that you interjected before my elucidation of how it (that part of the exchange) is not tricky so as to inform me that, in the terms of the word ‘tricky’ meaning something hard to explain, it (that part of the exchange) is tricky to you also?

RESPONDENT: They have nothing to do with the behaviour I am commenting on!

RICHARD: In which case you can only be referring to that elucidation of mine ...

RESPONDENT: There you go again with your VAIN ASSUMPTIONS!

RICHARD: As there is no other part of the exchange in question, than that elucidation of mine, which is not on this page it was the only assumption to be made.

RESPONDENT: I am not at all referring to that elucidation of yours, let alone ‘can only be’.

RICHARD: In which case there is only the three previously answered straightforward questions (at the top of this page) left for you to be commenting on.

RESPONDENT: What I am referring to – if you had cared to ‘re-read’ what I wrote with both eyes open this time – was the way you dictatorially assert your interpretation/ hypotheses as the final arbiter and communicate with your correspondents as though theirs amount to jack shit.

RICHARD: As you have now made it abundantly clear that you are not referring to either my three-part question or my elucidation of same then just where is that asseverated dictatorial assertion of my supposed interpretation/ hypotheses ostensibly communicated as though my co-respondent’s purported interpretation/hypotheses allegedly amounts to nothing?

Incidentally, I read what you wrote in your initial e-mail with both eyes open the first time around – as is evidenced by my reply to that communication – so there is no need to remind me of it ... what you wrote has not ceased being subjectivistic just because it sat in the archives for 21 hours and 38 minutes.

RESPONDENT: Listen mate, it’s your problem not mine if you think your shit don’t stink.

RICHARD: Ha ... and when all else fails drop back onto the rugged appeal of ockerdom (as in c’mon now, wake up to yourself, you’re not god almighty y’know), eh?

Just because somebody happens to live/ reside on the landmass known as Australia it does not necessarily make them an ocker.

RESPONDENT: I’m just using the internet (fortunately indeed) to speak out when I smell a rat too.

RICHARD: As any and all odorosity you are sniffing comes solely from your interpretation of what you interpret to be the way my correspondence is conducted you need look no further than that penchant you have readily displayed time and again, of reading things into my words which are simply not there, for the odorivector of same.

*

RESPONDENT: The only thing I am interested in discussing with you Richard is your condescending verbal attacks on your correspondents and your inability to see it – i.e. smell your own shit. Anytime.

RICHARD: I snipped out every above word of mine as it has become patently obvious that anything actually written by me just gets in the way of your interpretation of same and, speaking of which, I appreciate your honesty in going public with such an unequivocal declaration that the only thing you are interested in discussing with me is just that (your interpretations) ... and anytime to boot.

So, which interpretation are you planning on kicking off your interpretative discussion with ... your interpretation that my (now-snipped) words constituted a condescending verbal attack on my co-respondent or your previous interpretation that my (now-snipped) words indicated a dearth of peace on earth?

And this is why I ask:

• [Richard]: ‘So you know from first-hand experience that it is a fact you got angry; that friend of yours knows from first-hand experience it is a fact he got angry; each and every one of those people getting angry knows from first-hand experience it is a fact they are angry?
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Now here *it* becomes tricky.
• [Richard]: ‘*It* is not tricky at all ...
[Respondent]: ‘Not to you, but to No. 89 *its* [aka it is] tricky (can also used as a turn of phrase for something hard to explain or understand), in those terms *its* [aka it is] tricky to me also, others might care less’. [emphasises and bracketed inserts added].

Here is what a dictionary has to say about that objective (dative and accusative) pronoun:

• ‘it: as obj. (direct, indirect, or after preps.): the thing etc. previously mentioned, implied, or easily identified’. (Oxford Dictionary).

As you have made it abundantly clear that you are not referring to my three-part question previously mentioned and easily identified (or my elucidation of same for that matter), then is your version of [quote] ‘it’ [endquote] a phantom ‘it’, perchance?

If so, ‘tis no wonder you are experiencing that as being [quote] ‘something hard to explain’ [endquote].

*

RESPONDENT: Oh this goes way back Richard. I am not only referring to this particular thread, far from it.

RICHARD: As this is the thread you specifically chose in order to inform me that your interpretation of my words is that [quote] ‘peace on earth is no where to be found’ [endquote] in my correspondence then it is obviously the thread in which to start discussing the only thing you are interested in discussing with me (your interpretation of my words as being condescending verbal attacks on my correspondents).

Accordingly, here are my words, reinserted for your convenience, in the sequence they were written:

• [Co-Respondent to Peter]: ‘You simply and continuously confuse facts with hypotheses (= explanations of facts). Just to make sure that we agree on that: 1. There are facts, or are there not? (I assume for a moment that you agree there are facts). Example for a fact: ‘People are getting angry’.
• [Richard]: ‘How do you know that is a fact (that people are getting angry)?
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘To be precise, my statement ‘people are getting angry’ is actually not a fact but a generalisation based on observations of facts. A factual statement would be: ‘A friend of mine got angry.’
• [Richard]: ‘How do you know that is a fact (that a friend of yours got angry)?
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘By means of sense data (hearing him shout, seeing him getting red in his face), which I then subsequently interpreted as signs of ‘anger’ and by means of communication (asking him of he was angry and he confirmed).
• [Richard]: ‘Have you ever got angry (at any time at all including childhood)?
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Yes, I have got angry in the past. I can recall various occasions in which I felt anger. Now how do I know anger? I know it by experience. I experienced ‘anger’.
• [Richard]: ‘So you know from first-hand experience that it is a fact you got angry; that friend of yours knows from first-hand experience it is a fact he got angry; each and every one of those people getting angry knows from first-hand experience it is a fact they are angry?
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Now here it becomes tricky.
• [Richard]: ‘It is not tricky at all ... I asked you whether you have ever got angry and you replied in the affirmative: therefore you know from first-hand experience, do you not, that it is a fact you got angry? You asked that friend of yours if he was angry and he replied in the affirmative: therefore he knows from first-hand experience, does he not, that it is a fact he got angry? And the same applies to each and every one of those people getting angry: provided they too report being angry they too know, do they not, from first-hand experience it is a fact they are angry? Perhaps if I were to put it this way (in case that still appears tricky to you): by the very fact of having got angry on various occasions you report first-hand experiences (you are not expounding theory or hypothesises); by the very fact of having got angry that friend of yours also reports a first-hand experience (he too is not expounding theory or hypothesises); by the very fact of getting angry each and every one of those people getting angry can report first-hand experiences as well (they too would not be expounding theory or hypotheses)?

If you could explain how you interpret those words of mine as being a condescending verbal attack on my co-respondent it will be most appreciated.

*

RESPONDENT: OK although one wonders why you need to be reminded, I will say it again.

RICHARD: I have received nothing as yet, despite six e-mails from you, to be [quote] ‘reminded’ [endquote] of ... you are yet to explain it (just how you go about interpreting those words of mine as being a condescending verbal attack on my co-respondent) for the first time.

RESPONDENT: The verbal aggression I was ‘interpreting’ in that thread was your (as usual) dictatorial arbitration.

RICHARD: I do understand that you are interpreting [quote] ‘verbal aggression/ dictatorial arbitration’ [endquote] ... the question is: whereabouts in that text of mine (re-posted above in its entirety) is there anything even remotely resembling same such as to occasion you to do so? It is your call.

RESPONDENT: Are you writing to me?

RICHARD: I am writing to the person who is currently writing to this mailing list under the name ‘[No. 87]’ (if that is what you mean).

RESPONDENT: Because it seems more like you are writing to yourself ...

RICHARD: No matter what it [quote] ‘seems more like’ [endquote] to you I am most certainly not writing to myself ... if I were I would have got a straight answer, a detailed answer, an answer complete with reference to the text in question, by return mail (instead of the seven vacuous e-mails received from you).

RESPONDENT: ... and I can make neither head nor tail of it.

RICHARD: Just what part of [quote] ‘if you could explain how you interpret those words of mine [reposted above in their entirety for your convenience] as being a condescending verbal attack on my co-respondent it will be most appreciated’ [endquote] is it that you can make neither head nor tail of?

It is still your call.

RESPONDENT (to Richard): My interpretation, by the way you correspond (steamroll/ verbally attack), is that peace on earth is no where to be found in your correspondence. You are just another vain ego up on your pedestal imagining your own subjective interpretation (and that is all it can ever be, verbal or otherwise) is the final arbiter, and the interpretations of your correspondents amount to jack shit.

RESPONDENT No. 60: So many of us see the same thing, and have for years. I’m sure we’ve all wondered many times whether it was just us, or whether there was really something there to see. How could we all be imagining this? (...)

(...)

CO-RESPONDENT (to Richard): Do you talk like this in live interactions as well?

RESPONDENT: Most probably does ...

RICHARD: As it was you who kicked-off that entire interpretative-not-literalistic approach to my words, which has been a feature of the majority of the posts to this mailing list since then, this is an apt place as any to enquire as to whether you too interact, in-person, the same way you do here ... which is, essentially, to disregard/ discount what another actually has to say and palter on about the only thing you are interested in discussing (fabrications and trumpery which rest upon no evidence whatsoever but rely solely upon intuition and imagination).

In case that is not clear enough: were you to talk to me, in-person, the way you do in print there is no [quote] ‘most probably does’ [endquote] about it ... I most certainly would talk like this as the same or similar is nothing new to me. For example:

• [Respondent No. 63]: ‘I’m participating in a discussion list and suggesting that some of its members are full of bullshit.
• [Peter]: ‘Over the years we have had many people who have come to this mailing list with this motive. It appears that for whatever personal reasons they are moved to fabricate distortions, concoct falsehoods, contrive exaggerations, broadcast innuendo, disseminate gossip, seed insinuations, create suspicion, encourage ambiguity, cast aspersions and, if that doesn’t work, revert to rudeness and even hostility ...
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘It’s been a strange experience seeing this as I’ve never seen such extreme behaviour on another list.
• [Richard]: ‘Not only is ‘such extreme behaviour’ a feature of this mailing list it is quite typical of what happens in some face-to-face interactions as well ... my previous companion oft-times observed that the more I continued to talk factually, with a fellow human being sitting with me on my veranda, about the actuality of life, the universe, and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are, the more insane their responses became (and she used the word ‘insane’ advisedly as, still having a psyche intact, she was able to discern the quality of the psychic currents swirling all about).
Further to the point: not only has my current companion also similarly observed this she has experienced the same for herself ... ‘tis not for nothing I stress that actualism is not for the faint of heart/ the weak of knee.
It does indeed take nerves of steel to plumb the stygian depths of the human condition’.

RESPONDENT: No point in replying.

RICHARD: That is because there was no point in launching your interpretative-not-literalistic approach to my words in the first place ... and to think it all began with such a simple thing as me asking my co-respondent three more straightforward questions, in the context of three previously answered straightforward questions, so as to elicit affirmation that such a summary is cogent before proceeding.

Not that they ever did answer the questions actually asked, of course, but as it is not their integrity which is currently under the spotlight that is neither here nor there at this stage.

RESPONDENT: Richard, why do you say you are free of malice ...

RICHARD: For no other reason than, being sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto, it is impossible for any emotional/ passional feelings whatsoever to occur.

RESPONDENT: ... [why do you say you are free of malice] when you make the decision to occasionally say something to someone on this list that would obviously insult/ upset/ piss off?

RICHARD: Just for starters, I do not make any such decision – either occasionally or otherwise – and the following is a classic example of it making no difference whatsoever anyway how I might couch my responses:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘You are a malicious sod, a repulsive cyber guru that gets me nausea because my feelings are not extinct and listening your shit is too much for my ego. Was not clear that you are a pure fallacy, was not clear my meaning?
• [Richard]: ‘Am I to take it that, because you feel nausea (and, previously, repugnance) when reading my words, these feelings then prove that I am ‘a pure fallacy’? In other words, your feelings are to be taken as being the arbiter of what I am? Are you really telling me that I am to be guided by your feelings?
I did not spend eleven years, delving deep into the depths of ‘my’ psyche (which is the ‘human’ psyche) exposing, and thus eliminating through the exposure, anything whatsoever that was insalubrious ... only to be run by your feelings when I came onto the internet to share my discoveries with my fellow human being.
Look, it is this simple: for as long as you continue to be as you currently are then I am sure you will find, as a consequence, that other people’s responses will have the self-induced effect on you of you feeling nausea, repugnance or whatever other feeling that you may thus activate in that entire repertoire of feelings you nurse to your bosom’.

Put succinctly: it is what is being said, and not how it is being said, which gets up some people’s noses.

RESPONDENT: Just very recently you told No. 53 that he might not be able to understand grown-up words ... remember?

RICHARD: In all of my experience I cannot recall any teenager feeling insulted/ upset/ annoyed when it was suggested they may have to ask an adult what certain words/ concepts mean – or, for that matter, that they look them up in a dictionary/ encyclopaedia – as it is all part and parcel of the learning process.

If (note ‘if’) one was to have such a chip on their shoulder as to feel that way about learning something new then that contrariousness is their business, not mine, as I did not go public just to be run by another’s feelings about any advancement of or improvement to their knowledge, their rationality, their discussional skills, and so on, and so forth.

*

RESPONDENT: I didn’t know that No. 53 is a teenager. Is this a fact?

RICHARD: No adult – or, at least no adult in their right mind, that is – would type out and send to this mailing list what juveniles usually daub on the walls of public lavatories ... for just a few instances (cropped and edited for reasons of space):

• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘That deluded arrogant slut, Vineeto ...’. (Thursday, 22/04/2004 1:34 AM AEST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘Vineeto .... you pathetic, arrogant, deluded slut!’ (Thursday, 22/04/2004 12:34 AM AEST)
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘You are a nauseating, ignorant, deluded slut’. (Saturday, 24/04/2004 8:09 PM AEST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘... arrogant, deluded, sick slut’. (Saturday, 24/04/2004 8:09 PM AEST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘Yeah Vineeto, you are just soooo different now aren’t you? You dumb slut ...’. (Friday, 21/01/2005 12:09 AM AEDST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘Only an oxygen deprived slut would tout how much everyone likes her and brag how she gets on well with everyone/people as they are ...’. (Thursday, 9/12/2004 4:37 AM AEDST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘Dump that useless bag of endless drivel and dribble ---> Vineeto. How you put up with that annoying slut has got to be one of the wonders of this world (...) your sperm receptacle aka Vineeto’. (Wednesday, 8/12/2004 2:23 PM AEDST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘... the slut and her pimp, Mr. Codswallop’. (Friday, 15/10/2004 10:53 AM AEDST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘ ... that mega-self-conscious slut of spirituality and now actualism herself, Vinotatallneeto ...’. (Friday, 8/10/2004 12:18 PM AEDST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘Personally, I like sluts, except annoying, self-absorbed ones like Vinotsoneeto’. (Monday, 4/10/2004 9:24 AM AEDST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘Vineeto, the slut to end all sluts (no offence to pros and amateurs alike) and her boyfriend, the desperado pimp ...’. (Tuesday, 28/09/2004 11:59 AM AEST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘... either dump that bitch who incessantly rambles on & on & on at the push of her actualist buttons; or slap her rambling on & on ass silly. How you can put up with that warty outgrowth of the human survival package has got me beat’. (Friday, 17/12/2004 9:34 PM AEDST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘Vineeto you dumb slut ... when you give one blow job and one ball massage to one of your clients ...’ (Monday, 11/04/2005 5:44 AM AEST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘You dum dumb slut ...’ (Sunday, 24/04/2005 1:46 AM AEST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘Yo, you lying bitch (...) Ok you lying kunt (...) The next time you feel a need to puke your nonsense from your oral organ all over these pages or to any other fellow human being that happens to be in your crossfire, just unzip Peters pants and put your kisser to work’. (Monday, 12/04/2004 1:00 AM AEST).

RESPONDENT: Wow! But still, didn’t you know that to say what you said when you said it would make him mad?

RICHARD: Here is a useful link: www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html

RESPONDENT No. 111: Richard, why do you say you are free of malice ...

RICHARD: For no other reason than, being sans the entire affective faculty/identity in toto, it is impossible for any emotional/passional feelings whatsoever to occur.

RESPONDENT No. 111: ... [why do you say you are free of malice] when you make the decision to occasionally say something to someone on this list that would obviously insult/ upset/ piss off?

RICHARD: Just for starters, I do not make any such decision – either occasionally or otherwise – and the following is a classic example of it making no difference whatsoever anyway how I might couch my responses: [Co-Respondent]: ‘You are a malicious sod, a repulsive cyber guru that gets me nausea because my feelings are not extinct and listening your shit is too much for my ego. Was not clear that you are a pure fallacy, was not clear my meaning?’ ...

RESPONDENT: Out of all the correspondent’s who have expressed their doubts about your freedom from malice by ‘how’ you write and not ‘what’ you write, why you choose this particular excerpt to give evidence of a classic example of it making no difference ‘how’ Richard might couch his responses, beats me.

RICHARD: First of all, my co-respondent is not expressing their doubts, as you quaintly put it, but are straight-out telling me in no uncertain terms that I am [quote] ‘a pure fallacy’ [endquote].

And the reason why I provided that particular example is because of it being so blatant even Blind Freddie could see it ... to wit: just listening to what I have to report/ describe/ explain makes them feel sick.

RESPONDENT: The guy is simply expressing what he thinks and feels about you!

RICHARD: I will first draw your attention to the way it is phrased:

1. ‘You are a malicious sod ...’.
2. ‘[You are] a repulsive cyber guru ...’.
3. ‘ ... you are a pure fallacy ...’. [endquotes].

Then to this:

• ‘are (see be): have the state or quality expressed by the predicate’. (Oxford Dictionary).

Thus there is no [quote] ‘thinks and feels’ [endquote] about it in my co-respondent’s mind ... if (note ‘if’) it were to be, as you disingenuously say, a simple expression of what another thinks and feels about me it would look something like this:

1. ‘I think you are a malicious sod ...’.
2. ‘I think you are a repulsive cyber guru ...’.
3. ‘ ... I think you are a pure fallacy ...’. [end examples].

Or like this:

1. ‘I feel that you are a malicious sod ...’.
2. ‘I feel that are a repulsive cyber guru ...’.
3. ‘ ... I feel that you are a pure fallacy ...’. [end examples].

To which I may very well have responded with words to the effect that whatever it is a person might think or feel about me it makes no difference whatsoever to what I actually am.

RESPONDENT: Why on earth it evokes the following paranoid interpretation is a mystery!

RICHARD: As the following is not, as you imaginatively put it, a paranoid interpretation there is nothing mysterious about it.

*

RICHARD: ... [Richard]: ‘Am I to take it that, because you feel nausea (and, previously, repugnance) when reading my words, these feelings then prove that I am ‘a pure fallacy’? In other words, your feelings are to be taken as being the arbiter of what I am? Are you really telling me that I am to be guided by your feelings? ...’

RESPONDENT: Just where in that excerpt do you get that your correspondent was telling you that you are to be ‘guided’ by his feelings or that his feelings are to be taken as being the arbiter of what you are?

RICHARD: As I intimately know I am not even a sod, a guru (cyber or otherwise), or a fallacy – let alone a malicious sod, a repulsive guru, a pure fallacy – then it can only be those feelings my co-respondent informed me of which are making them insist that I sit up and take notice of their statements about me. Vis.:

• [quote]: ‘... that gets me nausea *because my feelings are not extinct* and listening your shit is too much for my ego.’ [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: Why play dumb all of a sudden ...

RICHARD: As I am not playing dumb then whatever you were to have followed that assumption with it would be a non-sequitur.

RESPONDENT: ... [Why play dumb all of a sudden] and forget your own adage ...

RICHARD: As I do not have an adage to either forget or remember your non-sequitur query is doubly irrelevant.

RESPONDENT: ... [Why play dumb all of a sudden and forget your own adage]: your correspondent is his feelings and his feelings are him ..

RICHARD: As you are obviously referring to my oft-repeated observation of how it is for maybe 6.0 billion identities – ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ – this is as apt a place as any to point out that the identity writing to me is making themself feel sick by the very fact of reading what I have to report/describe/explain.

RESPONDENT: ... (IOW the buck stopped with him)?

RICHARD: Yet for my co-respondent the buck does not stop with them ... they are taking no responsibility at all for the self-induced effect my reports/descriptions/explanations are having upon them.

RESPONDENT: Or do I detect a cunning agenda?

RICHARD: No ... you are fantasising a cunning agenda.

RESPONDENT: A ploy to herald in – for the umpteenth time – another pompous (albeit irrelevant) pontification ...

RICHARD: Ha ... I did not become bereft of the imaginative/intuitive facility only to be run by your fantasies when I came onto the internet to share my discoveries with my fellow human being.

Look, it is this simple: for as long as you continue to be as you currently are then I am sure you will find, as a consequence, that other people’s responses will have the self-induced effect on you of you imagining all manner of devious things about their nature, character and disposition.

*

RICHARD: ... [quote] ‘I did not spend eleven years, delving deep into the depths of ‘my’ psyche (which is the ‘human’ psyche) exposing, and thus eliminating through the exposure, anything whatsoever that was insalubrious ... only to be run by your feelings when I came onto the internet to share my discoveries with my fellow human being. Look, it is this simple: for as long as you continue to be as you currently are then I am sure you will find, as a consequence, that other people’s responses will have the self-induced effect on you of you feeling nausea, repugnance or whatever other feeling that you may thus activate in that entire repertoire of feelings you nurse to your bosom’.. Put succinctly: it is what is being said, and not how it is being said, which gets up some people’s noses.

RESPONDENT: If you could find the relevant excerpts that prove this, it would be most appreciated since from everything I have read here it has always been quite the opposite.

RICHARD: As there are umpteen examples in the archived e-mails on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site of one-eyed peoples ... um ... pompously pontificating about an actual freedom from the human condition not being new to human experience/human history (for just one example) there is no need for me to find the relevant excerpts which prove that.

RESPONDENT: BTW shouldn’t that read we let our own interpretations and feelings get up our own noses ...

RICHARD: Not necessarily ... some peoples take umbrage at the very fact of having their pet hero’s highly revered state of being be exposed for what it is (an institutionalised insanity).

RESPONDENT: ... or do you secretly ‘hope’ your words have the ‘power’ to ‘get up peoples noses’ ...

RICHARD: No, I know perfectly well that it is what is being said, and not how it is being said, which some peoples take umbrage at.

RESPONDENT: ... or to ‘guide’ ...

RICHARD: No.

RESPONDENT: ... and be the ‘arbiter’ of what another is?

RICHARD: No.

RESPONDENT: Something like Dickie the Dictator calling the kettle black eh?

RICHARD: No.

RESPONDENT: We’ll sort out those idiosyncrasies yet eh what ...

RICHARD: ‘Tis your own – and another’s – fantasies/fabrications you are busily sorting out.

RESPONDENT: ... just a small matter of De Nile ...

RICHARD: The reason why I deny saying that I am the [quote] ‘1st, last & only’ [endquote] person ever to be actually free of the human condition is quite prosaic ... to wit: I never have said such a thing.

RESPONDENT: ... must have pissed your kids off no end ... and still does :-)

RICHARD: As it is your fantasy about another’s fabrications you can, of course, have it still be doing whatever you want it to.

*

RESPONDENT: [Addendum] There’s also a matter of ‘how’ one says something and ‘what’ one says being inextricably linked so why the dissociation?

RICHARD: Here is what I wrote:

[Richard]: ‘... the following is a classic example of it making no difference whatsoever anyway how I might couch my responses: [snip quote]. Put succinctly: it is what is being said, and not how it is being said, which gets up some people’s noses’. [endquote].

As there is no such dissociation there your (academic) query is a non-sequitur.

RESPONDENT: Not sure yet what to key in for a search on the many ways people have expressed their concerns about ‘how’ Richard writes here.

RICHARD: You could always try browsing through the ‘Anti-Peace Hall Of Fame’ for some clues.

RESPONDENT: Also noticed that each time it’s mentioned he gets more punchy like a hard-nosed street kid.

RICHARD: As what you notice and what is actually occurring are two distinctly different things you would be well-advised to focus upon the latter.

RESPONDENT: Step on in everyone, its a circus in here, bring your popcorn. Good to see ya No. 53. crunch crunch.

RICHARD: And thus do you go spiralling off into the night – as myopic as you came – trailing your detritus behind you.

Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

Design, Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.