Actual Freedom ~ Commonly Raised Objections

Commonly Raised Objections

Actualists Are Twisting My Words

It is beyond my comprehension that my wife’s report she couldn’t tell ‘that there were sensations’ and that ‘there was no experience’ should be ‘sufficient indication that dissociation was taking place’ and ‘some trance-like affective state of being’. You are indeed the master word twister. You take the words somebody says] as it pleases your world view and then take them apart accordingly to your logic and ideology. I see zero benevolence here.

You cut & paste, you rearrange previous correspondences in an absurd abstract manner ...

Fair and reasonable all the way, but just for fun, here’s a bit of twisty logic to sink your teeth into... In other words, according to this logic, the mere occurrence of a PCE proves the falsity of the Big Bang. Your own interpretation of the experience is irrelevant to R’s proof.

You display a degree of insolence by twisting my words to suit your agenda. The words of mine are clearly documented on various websites. They will stand the test of time; and your unwillingness or inability to address my questions directly is also documented permanently.

Good grief man ... do you even read what you write? Do you not see the twisty games you play with words? If all you have is a spiritual brush, everything gets painted the same.

Only a fool would believe it because people watch what you DO, your tricks, how you tend to beat up on people when you feel they are intellectually weaker than you are, and how you twist the words of others to disguise your inability to meet those words adequately. Either you are stone nuts or you are sinister.

You sure do like to bring up the past whilst advocating memorizing a certain phrase to free you from the past. You are truly a twisted individual.

Actually, Richard is playing games, as he usually does. For example, in the above he is taking something I said to another – in a different context and for a different reason – and attempting to make it apply in this particular case. He knows what he is doing and why: He doesn’t want to discuss with me because I am capable of exposing the flaws in his actualistic beliefs. It’s easy then, for a fairly sharp mind to escape by using the past, by taking things out of context and twisting them in a manner which attempts to discredit the rationality of the offending person, thus enabling the escapee to bow out – public image remaining intact.

I would like to remember you a few facts: No. 40 exposed (...) Richard’s fallacies, etc., giving [him] an opportunity for facing reality. You can review all those posts in the archive, I am not inventing it. I see, it is expectable Richard, your typical behaviour of hypocrite sod. Let me help you, perhaps you have not the following definitions in your Oxford Dictionary: Fallacy is to avoid other’s questions and to flee like a fearful rabbit when someone is trying to understand you. Fallacy is to manipulate your past conversations in this list, copying and pasting in your web page what is convenient for you and skipping what is not. Fallacy is to select bit extracts from K’s quotes so that they can sound as you need. Fallacy is to come back with this shit of post for defending yourself of previous No. 40’s informations and comment when it is of public domain. ... You manipulate your conversations in this list, cutting them for your convenience and pasting it so in your web page.

Here is an excellent example of the meaning of words getting lost in the superficial similarity of words. I don’t know whether Vineeto’s loss of No 62’s meaning of ‘you ARE it!’ was intentional, or just an oversight. It hardly looks like an oversight – if so it’s quite a blunder. I do have to wonder whether Vineeto is intentionally creating a straw man by twisting another’s words – as I have noticed on occasion in dialogue with me, the only other alternative I can see is that Vineeto has given up thinking for herself.

Unfortunately, postmodernism has warped some people’s mind into thinking that objective facts are questionable at best or even impossible. The strange thing was that I was left feeling that someone had just tried to seriously mess with my mind, and it felt like an almost physical twist of my brain.

The emotion I had most difficulty with was guilt. Guilt at ‘leaving’ my wife behind, guilt at being happy and guilt for making her unhappy. All of these boiled down to an examination of me being ‘responsible’ for others (which is, of course, nonsense) and underlying that, the fear of being on my own and of being different. As Richard has often said, it takes nerves of steel to break free from the safety of the herd and I was often accused of being obsessed, having a ‘one track mind’ and ‘twisting her words’. Another favourite was being ‘clever-clever’. As more emotional ties were severed and these taunts began to more and more miss their mark, so their frequency diminished – with nothing to hook into, there is little point in ‘casting’, as mentioned above.

It is amazing how many people have described their dialogue with Richard in this way. Myself included. The interesting thing is, when Richard is in discussion with other people I’m usually able to look at the exchanges and think: hey, hang on a minute, that’s not what Richard said ... or ... no, no, you’ve taken that the wrong way, he meant [this or that] ... or no don’t get angry at this point, just think about this some more ... etc, etc, etc. But when it’s me involved, no way. Richard is simply nuts, he can’t understand what I’m saying to him, he’s twisting my words, trying to score points off me, trying to humiliate me. How could an ‘actually free’ person behave in such a petty, spiteful, egotistical manner, etc, etc, etc.

Design ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-.  All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity