Viz.:

From: Charlie Bragg
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000
To: actualfreedom@listbot.com
Subject: Peter Re: Creativity
Hi Peter,
Skye is an alias i used for quite a while, but she got stuck and degenerated into a total bimbo :-) Charlie is far more sensible [...] There was a time when i found Richard to be arrogant now i realise it was my 'I's' way of avoiding actuality and fighting for dear life, because now as i dare to question everything i am causing that same repugnance! Most amusing. I'm discovering that the 'I' is profoundly blind about what is theory and what is fact! and worse in order to keep existing it wants to stay that way. And yes its response to criticism is fascinating, really exposes its tricks doesn't it. [...] There is so much investigating to do, but there is a cavalier sense of adventure, more exhilarating than any eastern theory i ever came across.
I have so many questions, i don't know where to start. I have been much influenced by the Seth Material, which cherishes the individual 'I', so actualism really is 180 degrees in the opposite, but so appealing to my love of sensate existence. I am most looking forward to exploring it in great depth with everyone.
Have a great evening,
Charlie

Howsoever, this “mea-culpa turnabout” had a very short use-by date as a couple of months later, on Friday, 28 July, 2000, it was abruptly rescinded (ostensibly due to an absence of “greetings” from Richard).

Viz.:

From: Charlie Bragg
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000
To: actualfreedom@listbot.com
Subject: Re: The Wisdom Of A Bodiless Spirit
CHARLIE: Greetings, Richard, welcome back. Trusting everything is running smoothly again. But no greetings for this unruly one I see. Oh boo hoo (just playing). I hope you do not mind being disagreed with?
RICHARD: I do not mind at all – it is your life you are living and I can only suggest – what you do with these suggestions is entirely up to you.
CHARLIE: So, am I to gather that actual freedom absolves one of the simple curtesy of greeting your list members?
RICHARD: Oh? Were you not ‘just playing’ after all?
CHARLIE: The boo hoo was (just playing) yes as i bracketed. But the second time my question was obviously seriously asked...Oh Great Discerning Intellect. You still have not answered it, nor have you found the curtesy to greet me before engaging in this third thread. You would have to be a simpleton to think i was still playing, Oh so Free of Malice One. And if i may take the liberty of being as blunt as yourself, all that reveals to me, is that your malice has not been exterminated at all. It is glaringly obvious by the tone and twisted comprehension of most of your posts that you receive enormous pleasure out of teasing and being downright irritating, which only serves to incite more malice and sorrow???
But we've been through that before on the K-list. Where your approach has the same insensitive malicious ring to it, and alienated many. Which doesn't exactly put paid to your sincere concern for your fellow man and all the so called suffering you think, being like you (an Actualist) will eradicated from the earth.
A short time ago i wrote ‘There was a time when i found Richard to be arrogant now i realise it was my 'I's' way of avoiding actuality and fighting for dear life, because now as i dare to question everything i am causing that same repugnance!’ Well after two months of being here i take it all back, i was naive and realised bullshit. You *are* simply arrogant Richard, as arrogant and as malicious as any blind human being. One only has to read your alienating correspondence to see that Actualism does not achieve intimacy with ones fellow man. [...]

The following year, after having sent fifty-odd posts altogether – which had become increasingly acerbic – sock-puppet ‘Charlie-Bragg’ posted an email (on Wednesday, June 27, 2001) containing a modified version of that long list of unreferenced quotes (allegedly “precisely copied and pasted” excerpts) from some of Richard’s emails of that period in 1999. They also included another, similarly pleonastic,vilification to justify their re-posting of it on The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list.

Viz.:

From: Charlie Bragg
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001
To: actualfreedom@listbot.com
Subject: Disrespect
[...]
Here's a load of his antisocial antagonistic correspondence to the Krishnamurti list. Its chock full of disrespect, belittlement, unfriendliness, unkindness, arrogance, callous debunking, cynicism, sarcasm, provocation, feigned exasperation, downright unpleasantness, haughty indignation, phoney gratitude eg. ‘and I thank you for giving me permission!’ exaggerated exclamations, denial, feigned resignation, fault finding, phoney politeness eg. ‘If I may point out’, ridicule, personal attack, browbeating and above all a total obsession with the word *YOU*. Che che che check it out.

Again, it is utterly bizarre how sock-puppet ‘Charlie-Bragg’ (aka ‘Chaz’ alias ‘Neemyth’ alias ‘Skye-Chambers’) could assert, in that accompanying condemnatory judgement of theirs, how the words in the long list of unreferenced quotes are in fact an example of an antisocial antagonistic correspondence chock full of disrespect, belittlement, unfriendliness, unkindness, arrogance, callous debunking, cynicism, sarcasm, provocation, feigned exasperation, downright unpleasantness, haughty indignation, phoney gratitude, exaggerated exclamations, denial, feigned resignation, fault finding, phoney politeness, ridicule, personal attack, browbeating and above all a total obsession with the word ‘YOU’.

Well done, Rick!

The puppeteer manipulating that particular sock puppet is evidently a liar.

Even so, a fully-referenced duly-annotated quote-by-quote confutation will thoroughly set the matter to rest once and for all. Accordingly, here is the first of the 73 (unreferenced) lines of quotes, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote: This is what a freed intelligence looks like. My writing is flowery This is ‘knowledge’ that you are spouting here ... and pathetic ‘knowledge’ at that.
[...]

As the second sentence of that (unreferenced) quote makes no grammatical sense a closer inspection (the capitalised word ‘This’, after the word ‘flowery’, for instance) reveals that it is actually a stitched-together composite formed by extracting two sentences and a part-sentence from three different emails written to three different co-respondents on three different days ... to wit: Respondent No. 36 (September 25 1999) and Respondent No. 25 (September 26 1999) and Respondent No. 12 (September 22 1999).

Here is the first sentence, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 25 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘What part of you wanted it?

• [Richard]: ‘The intelligent ‘part’ that wants all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides to stop. (...)

• [Respondent]: ‘You may be using words that us with an ego frame-of-reference can understand but you are talking about an event where some part of you seems to have made a choice. What is it in you that chooses?

• [Richard]: ‘Perhaps it is the use of the word ‘intelligent’ (and I mean a freed intelligence) that is confusing the issue ... would the word ‘sensibleness’ convey it? As in: it is silly to be malicious and sorrowful and it is sensible to be happy and harmless.

*This is what a freed intelligence looks like*’ [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 36, 25 Sep 1999).

And here is the second part-sentence, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 26 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘If you or I are more willing to accept something because there is a plethora of substantiation, then perhaps we are not seeing the thing for ourselves but instead being mesmerised by the order of the symbolic building blocks used to convey the thing.

• [Richard]: ‘No ... I do not operate like that.

• [Respondent]: ‘I hear you, but I am sceptical. What makes you enjoy ‘flowery’ use of language, if not its capacity to mesmerise?

• [Richard]: ‘*My writing is flowery* – which is a polite way of saying ‘convoluted and over-ornamental’ as an editor once explained to me – because it is an idiosyncrasy that brings me great delight. I make no apologies for an extravagant exuberance with words ... I am conveying the lavish exhilaration of life itself’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.25d, 26 Sep 1999).

What inimitable bizarrerie it is how ‘Sock Puppet Skye’ could assert, in their accompanying condemnatory judgement, that those highlighted-for-convenience words are a verbal brute bullying which is but unconstructive criticism – and they communicate with their dog better than that argumentative, accusing, pontificating, insulting, belittling, sarcastic, judgemental, condescending, snide, hammering repetitious bullying – insofar as it is not relating to one’s fellow human being without malice and sorrow at all but, rather, is perpetuating it monstrously (and that, whilst they used to think Richard had something important to share, they realise now they are no longer deluded and can thus learn nothing in dialogue with him except how to perpetuate repulsion because that is what his whole manner evokes) as his ‘belief’ in his harmlessness is just that, a ‘belief’, for it reflects in none of his words.

*

Here is the third sentence, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see – the word ‘pathetic’ is used in its ‘of or pertaining to the emotions’ (Oxford Dictionary) meaning in response to the affective word ‘spirit’ in the preceding aphorism – that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 22, 1999.

Viz.:

• [Konrad]: ‘[By the way, I think you are right about my opinion of you being mentally damaged. It is flawed. I have learnt a lot about the human brain lately. And I know it can adapt to anything and everything. So I think that it is possible to switch off the emotions as you assert it can. And I also think that it has probably happened in the way you describe it. I also think it is possible to design a special training that accomplishes that in others. I only think, contrary to you, that it is a bad idea]. Good luck!
• [Richard]: ‘I neither need ‘good luck’ nor does ‘luck’ exist outside of passionate human imagination. What I am today is the result of eleven years of diligence, application, patience, perseverance, determination and much internal and external observation, investigation, uncovering and discovering. I know where I am at, where I came from and how I got here.
• [Respondent No. 12]: ‘Pay for View Special – $25.00; Richard knowledge vs. Konrad knowledge. Tonight at 9 P.M.
• [Richard]: ‘Whosoever scorns the lessons of history, with a mimicked disdain for knowledge, commit themselves to doggedly re-making the blunders of their illustrious predecessors.
(...)
• [Respondent No. 12]: ‘There is a freedom which is not measurable. It has extraordinary space that has no contact with any ‘thing’. In that there is no seeking to achieve an end so there is no fear of loss nor desire for gain. See what I mean?
• [Richard]: ‘Aye, I lived that metaphysical freedom for eleven years ... so I know it intimately and not merely ‘see’ it. But what has all this to do with you disparaging knowledge with your ‘Richard knowledge vs. Konrad knowledge’ comment? Can you stay with the topic?
• [Respondent No. 12]: ‘You mean the topic as you will it, your agenda?
• [Richard]: ‘No, it is your will, your agenda. It was you who posted the mimicked disdain for knowledge comment ... not me. I am simply making sure that you stay on-topic, just this once, so as to see what happens.
• [Respondent No. 12]: ‘If that whole movement ...
• [Richard]: ‘By ‘that whole movement’ do you mean knowledge ... or are you straying off-topic again?
• [Respondent No. 12]: ‘... does not stop ...
• [Richard]: ‘Do you mean knowledge must cease ... or thought must cease ... or the whole movement of ‘me’ must cease?
• [Respondent No. 12]: ‘... there is no silence and hence no listening.
• [Richard]: ‘I am beginning to gain the impression that this ‘listening’ business is somewhat similar what the SETI aficionados are doing.
• [Respondent No. 12]: ‘If that whole movement does not stop there is no silence and hence no listening. It is the poor in spirit that are blessed, not the rich in knowledge.
• [Richard]: ‘Good grief ... regurgitating a pseudo-Christian aphorism makes it evident that [quote] ‘that whole movement’ [endquote] has not stopped for you yet. *This is ‘knowledge’ that you are spouting here ... and pathetic ‘knowledge’ at that*’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.12f, 22 Sep 1999).

What rank grotesquerie it is how ‘Sock Puppet Ron’ could assert, in their accompanying condemnatory judgement (and follow-up emails), that those highlighted-for-convenience words are an example of nothing but the vain self protective attacks of an ignorant fool – inasmuch the nonsensical, valueless, nit-picking, personal attacks; the twisting of facts, one-upmanship and avoidance of clear and logical questions, makes it obvious the guy has a major communication problem (in that he is woefully incompetent, vain and arrogant and sorely lacking in basic communication skills) – and where the context and manner in which he uses the words ‘oh’ and ‘umm’ smacks of an immature and insolent attitude, such as to not waste precious time replying to his pretentious denials of what could not be more obviously the dirty work of nothing but a clown.

There are 72 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the second line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
we are here to investigate, are we not?
[...]

Here is that part-question, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on October 01 1999.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘(...) To say that something [quote] ‘is an oxymoron’ [endquote] is, if not a disparagement, at least suggesting it is a worthless contradiction in terms.
• [Respondent]: ‘I think we covered this disparagement point earlier.
• [Richard]: ‘You may think so ... but I cannot call your responses an investigation, an exploration, an examination ... let alone an uncovering.
• [Respondent]: ‘K distinguishes between two different kinds of knowledge and that makes sense to me.
• [Richard]: ‘I know that it makes sense to you ... yet *we are here to investigate, are we not?* Why does it make sense to you? How does it make sense to you? If knowledge as ‘being’ cannot be known (given that you dutifully repeat that it is outside the purview of knowledge) then how can you know that what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says is correct? Have you found out for yourself? And if so, why can it not be known?’ [emphasis added].
(Richard, List B, 33, 01 Oct 1999).

It is categorically bizarre how ‘Sock Puppet Skye’ could assert, in their accompanying condemnatory judgement, that those highlighted-for-convenience words are a verbal brute bullying which is but unconstructive criticism – and they communicate with their dog better than that argumentative, accusing, pontificating, insulting, belittling, sarcastic, judgemental, condescending, snide, hammering repetitious bullying – insofar as it is not relating to one’s fellow human being without malice and sorrow at all but, rather, is perpetuating it monstrously (and that, whilst they used to think Richard had something important to share, they realise now they are no longer deluded and can thus learn nothing in dialogue with him except how to perpetuate repulsion because that is what his whole manner evokes) as his ‘belief’ in his harmlessness is just that, a ‘belief’, for it reflects in none of his words.

There are 71 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the third line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote: [...]
Why do you ignore!
[...]

That quote has been doctored – that exclamation mark has replaced the question mark in the original – and it is only the first half of an eight-word question anyway.

Here is the actual half-quote, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on October 01 1999.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘You are not clarifying ... you are merely restating your conclusion by implicitly denying the evidence that animals have a rudimentary self.
• [Respondent]: ‘May be, but the point under discussion here is self in humans. We are discussing your perceived disparagement of knowledge by K. And in that context, self of animals is besides the point, in my opinion.
• [Richard]: ‘But it was you who started this context ... I was having a dialogue with No. 12 and you bought in to tell me that you did not think that the ‘self’ is established via instincts. It is a bit rich to now try to tell me that it is [quote] ‘besides the point’ [endquote] as if I have strayed from the subject ... I have stayed right with the topic all the way through. Allow me to refresh your memory: Viz.:

[Respondent No. 12]: ‘The self is established in confusion’.
[Richard]: ‘Hmm ... given the way that you responded (above) it would appear that for you this is true. Howsoever, the ‘self’ is established via the genetically encoded instinctual passions that all sentient beings are born with ... commonly known as the ‘survival instinct’.
[Respondent]: ‘I don’t think that the ‘self’ is established via instincts. All animals have instincts, but only the human has a self. Isn’t ‘self’ really (and literally) an after-thought? For example, humans instinctively respond to certain situations and then the after-thought actually creates the self? For example, an instinctive response to avert a danger, and then after-thought: ‘I could have died’. The latter, I think, is what constitutes the self. Similarly with pleasurable activities: it is the desire to have more that creates the self’. [endquote].

Shall I proceed? Yes? So, is it that all the investigation, by other human beings observing animals both in captivity and in the wild, is just a waste of time according to you? Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says that the self is a product of thought trapped in psychological time and coincidentally you probably also have this as your own discovery ... and that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan and/or Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti might have walked this way, but that is irrelevant to what you say, eh? Yet Mr. Gotama the Sakyan did not know anything about what science is now mapping in the human brain ... and neither did Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti (most of these discoveries have occurred since his demise and he only read detective novels when alive anyway).

*Why do you ignore* the evidence of science?’ [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.33, 01 Oct 1999).

What manner of a personeity is it who would snip off the later half of a question, replace the question mark with an exclamation mark, and present the resultant bastardisation as evidence that proves a verbal brute bullying which is but unconstructive criticism – and that they communicate with their dog better than that argumentative, accusing, pontificating, insulting, belittling, sarcastic, judgemental, condescending, snide, hammering repetitious bullying – insofar as it is not relating to one’s fellow human being without malice and sorrow at all but, rather, is perpetuating it monstrously (and that, whilst they used to think Richard had something important to share, they realise now they are no longer deluded and can thus learn nothing in dialogue with him except how to perpetuate repulsion because that is what his whole manner evokes) as his ‘belief’ in his harmlessness is just that, a ‘belief’, for it reflects in none of his words?

Here is a useful word:

• deceitful (adj.): full of deceit (=‘misrepresentation of the truth in order to mislead’); given to deceiving; misleading, false; deceptive (=‘giving a false impression’). ~ (Oxford English Dictionary).

There are 70 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the fourth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
Okay then: why!
[...]

That quote has been doctored – that exclamation mark has replaced the question mark in the original – and it is only the first three words of a seventeen-word question anyway.

Here is the actual part-quote, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 25 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Let me clarify: the human self is created via thinking.
• [Richard]: ‘You are not clarifying ... you are merely restating your conclusion by implicitly denying the evidence that animals have a rudimentary self.
• [Respondent]: ‘When we act instinctively, there is no self.
• [Richard]: ‘Are you really saying that to act instinctively (with fear and aggression and nurture and desire for example) is to be selfless?
• [Respondent]: ‘Isn’t ‘self’ really (and literally) an after-thought?
(...)
• [Respondent]: ‘For example, an instinctive response to avert a danger, and then after-thought: ‘I could have died’.
• [Richard]: ‘Yet, on the whole, that is rarely a dispassionate ‘after-thought’ is it not? Mr. Joseph LeDoux has demonstrated that the amygdala non-cognitively generates instinctual fear (a passion) 14 milliseconds before any sensory information gets to the cerebral cortex. This fear response simultaneously releases adrenaline, which floods the body and the cerebral cortex, before thinking begins. Thus the thoughts are fear-filled thoughts ... which is hardly the stuff of a dispassionate ‘after-thought’ created ‘self’.
• [Respondent]: ‘True. In those 14 milliseconds there is no self either.
• [Richard]: ‘You are very quick to re-state your conclusion here ... are you of the ‘Tabula Rasa’ school of philosophy?
• [Respondent]: ‘There is a pure response to some stimulus.
• [Richard]: ‘Are you really saying that to act instinctively (with fear and aggression and nurture and desire for example) is a ‘pure response’?
• [Respondent]: ‘Later on the thought ‘I was afraid’ creates the self.
• [Richard]: ‘You do seem to be re-stating your conclusion again and again ... mere repetition does not make it so if it be not a fact.
• [Respondent]: ‘Actually, it is the reaction: ‘I was afraid and I don’t like it ...’ that creates the self.
• [Richard]: ‘*Okay then: why* was ‘I afraid’ in the first place (before the thought ‘I don’t like it’)? Are you saying that to be fearful (purely fearful) is to be selfless? [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.33, 25 Sep 1999).

What kind of personality is it who would snip off the major part of a question, replace the question mark with an exclamation mark, and present the resultant bastardisation as evidence that proves a verbal brute bullying which is but unconstructive criticism – and that they communicate with their dog better than that argumentative, accusing, pontificating, insulting, belittling, sarcastic, judgemental, condescending, snide, hammering repetitious bullying – insofar as it is not relating to one’s fellow human being without malice and sorrow at all but, rather, is perpetuating it monstrously (and that, whilst they used to think Richard had something important to share, they realise now they are no longer deluded and can thus learn nothing in dialogue with him except how to perpetuate repulsion because that is what his whole manner evokes) as his ‘belief’ in his harmlessness is just that, a ‘belief’, for it reflects in none of his words?

Here is a useful word:

• fraudulent (adj.): guilty of or given to fraud (=‘a dishonest artifice or trick’); deceitful, dishonest (=‘lacking in probity or integrity’). ~ (Oxford English Dictionary).

There are 69 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the fifth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
is not reasonable!
[...]

That quote has been doctored – the exclamation mark does not appear at all in the original – and it is only three words amidst a thirty three-word sentence anyway.

Here is the actual part-quote, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 24 1999.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘The primary cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on is the instinctual passions which give rise to malice and sorrow and the antidotally generated pacifiers of love and compassion which, if sublimated and transcended, give rise to Love Agapé and Divine Compassion. This ‘Tried and True’ solution to all the ills of humankind lies within the ‘Human Condition’ and, as it has had 3,000 to 5,000 years to demonstrate its efficacy, can be discarded as being the ‘Tried and Failed’.

• [Respondent]: ‘I see your point, yet I do not know many people who can claim, even arguably, to have had a true transformative experience with Love Agape and Divine Compassion.

• [Richard]: ‘Some enterprising person did a head count last year and came up with an estimate of 0.000001 of the population.

• [Respondent]: ‘So I wonder if these are truly ‘tried and failed’.

• [Richard]: ‘It has had at least 5,000 years of recorded history and maybe 50,000 years of prehistory to deliver the goods so glibly promised ... that is quite a dismal track record. There is just as much animosity and anguish now as ’way back then ... how long would a less glamorous experiment get to run its course before being discarded for a different model?

• [Respondent]: ‘Yet I would concede that even if these things exist and worked, they seem to be so rare that, well, they don’t work, i.e. they are not very practical. But the same thing could be said for your state, don’t you think?

• [Richard]: ‘Seeing as I went public in 1996 it *is not reasonable* to class it in the same category as something that has had – at the very least – 5,000 years to demonstrate its efficacy’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.38, 24 Sep 1999).

What type of personificator is it who would copy-paste three words from a sentence, append an exclamation mark, and present the resultant bastardisation as evidence that proves a verbal brute bullying which is but unconstructive criticism – and that they communicate with their dog better than that argumentative, accusing, pontificating, insulting, belittling, sarcastic, judgemental, condescending, snide, hammering repetitious bullying – insofar as it is not relating to one’s fellow human being without malice and sorrow at all but, rather, is perpetuating it monstrously (and that, whilst they used to think Richard had something important to share, they realise now they are no longer deluded and can thus learn nothing in dialogue with him except how to perpetuate repulsion because that is what his whole manner evokes) as his ‘belief’ in his harmlessness is just that, a ‘belief’, for it reflects in none of his words?

Here is a useful word:

• guileful (adj.): full of guile (=‘insidious cunning, deceit’); deceitful. ~ (Oxford English Dictionary).

There are 68 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the sixth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
It is a bit rich to try and tell me ...
[...]

That part-quote has been doctored – the latter part in the original reads ‘to now try to tell me’ (the word ‘now’ has been deleted and the second ‘to’ has been replaced with ‘and’) – and it is only the first eleven words of a thirty seven-word sentence anyway.

Here is the original of that part-quote, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on October 01 1999.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘The ‘self’ is established via the genetically encoded instinctual passions that all sentient beings are born with ... commonly known as the ‘survival instinct’.
• [Respondent]: ‘I don’t think that the ‘self’ is established via instincts. All animals have instincts, but only the human has a self.
• [Richard]: ‘All sentient beings have some degree of awareness of ‘self’ and ‘other’. Just for starters, it has been demonstrated, via the ‘scientific method’ (predictably repeatable on demand and replicable by anyone anywhere with the requisite knowledge and expertise), that chimpanzees have a recognisable rudimentary ‘self’ (as in an awareness of ‘self’ and ‘other’). There is no reason to assume that when a dog lifts a leg on a tree that it is unaware of ‘self’ as in what humans call <dog> and ‘other’ as in what humans call <tree> (whilst it is entirely reasonable to assume that a tree is unaware of ‘self’ as in what humans call <tree> and ‘other’ as in what humans call <dog>).
• [Respondent]: ‘Let me clarify: the human self is created via thinking.
• [Richard]: ‘You are not clarifying ... you are merely restating your conclusion by implicitly denying the evidence that animals have a rudimentary self.
• [Respondent]: ‘May be, but the point under discussion here is self in humans. We are discussing your perceived disparagement of knowledge by K. And in that context, self of animals is besides the point, in my opinion.
• [Richard]: ‘But it was you who started this context ... I was having a dialogue with No. 12 and you bought in to tell me that you did not think that the ‘self’ is established via instincts. *It is a bit rich to now try to tell me* that it is ‘besides the point’ as if I have strayed from the subject ... I have stayed right with the topic all the way through’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.33, 01 Oct 1999).

Here are the two versions juxtaposed for comparison:

• [Original]: It is a bit rich to now try to tell me ...
• [Altered]: It is a bit rich to try and tell me ...

What class of personifier is it who would copy-paste eleven words from a thirty seven-word sentence, delete the word ‘now’ and replace the second ‘to’ with ‘and’, and then present the resultant bastardisation as an example of nothing but the vain self protective attacks of an ignorant fool – inasmuch the nonsensical, valueless, nit-picking, personal attacks; the twisting of facts, one-upmanship and avoidance of clear and logical questions, makes it obvious the guy has a major communication problem (in that he is woefully incompetent, vain and arrogant and sorely lacking in basic communication skills) – and where the context and manner in which he uses the words ‘oh’ and ‘umm’ smacks of an immature and insolent attitude, such as to not waste precious time replying to his pretentious denials of what could not be more obviously the dirty work of nothing but a clown?

Here is a useful word:

• ridiculous (adj.): pointless, senseless, foolish, inane, fatuous, nonsensical, mindless; [e.g.]: ’what a ridiculous thing to do’ ~ (Oxford English Dictionary).

There are 67 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the seventh line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
Stick around on this Mailing List!
[...]

That quote has been doctored – the exclamation mark does not appear at all in the original – and it is only the first six words of a twenty-word sentence anyway.

Here is the actual part-quote, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 29 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘What is your prediction of when the change you have experienced will actually result in a world with no tortures, murders, etc?
• [Richard]: ‘I used to jokingly say 5,000 years (a figure plucked at random) but given the level of objections to being happy and harmless that people come
out with I would be inclined to say maybe never.
• [Respondent]: ‘It’s practical for you perhaps (just as Love Agape and Divine Compassion may be practical for those who experience it).
• [Richard]: ‘But Love Agape and Divine Compassion are not [quote] ‘practical’ [endquote] at all ... to practice pacifism and surrender is to allow the bully-boys to rule the world.

• [Respondent]: ‘So you identify pacifism with Love Agape and Divine Compassion?
• [Richard]: ‘It is not necessarily just my classification ... pacifism and surrender (meekness and humility and so on) are primary among the principle injunctions handed down by the Gurus and the God-men.
• [Respondent]: ‘I do not, since I really have no idea what these things are, they’re just words to me.
• [Richard]: ‘*Stick around on this Mailing List* and you will soon get the drift ... such attributes are the main event’. [emphasis added].
(Richard, List B, No.38, 29 Sep 1999).

What sort of personage is it who would copy-paste the first six words of a twenty-word sentence, append an exclamation mark, then present the resultant bastardisation as evidence that proves a verbal brute bullying which is but unconstructive criticism – and that they communicate with their dog better than that argumentative, accusing, pontificating, insulting, belittling, sarcastic, judgemental, condescending, snide, hammering repetitious bullying – insofar as it is not relating to one’s fellow human being without malice and sorrow at all but, rather, is perpetuating it monstrously (and that, whilst they used to think Richard had something important to share, they realise now they are no longer deluded and can thus learn nothing in dialogue with him except how to perpetuate repulsion because that is what his whole manner evokes) as his ‘belief’ in his harmlessness is just that, a ‘belief’, for it reflects in none of his words?

Here is a useful word:

• swindler (v.): a person who practises fraud or deceit. ~ (Oxford English Dictionary).

There are 66 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the eighth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
Are you saying ...
[...]

That part-quote came from an off-topic exchange about technical problems due to differing email clients (Outlook, Netscape, Eudora etc.) – hence it has not been archived on Richard’s portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site until now – and it is only the first three words of a twenty-two-word question anyway.

Here is that part-quote, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 30 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent No. 10]: ‘Damn Richard, why does my computer have a problem getting your messages. If I see it is from you I just delete it, given I get about 3 or 4 Java errors each time. However sometimes I delete an already read message and one form you is next, then the problem begins. Do you know why? It only happens with your messages?
• [Richard]: ‘Different software programmes make for different formats and sometimes strange effects result in the digital translation from one format to another. I had a similar situation to what you describe last year when E-Mails from one correspondent on this Mailing List persistently came through as size 16 font in ‘bold’ … and then somehow made every other E-Mail that followed the same. The solution? I disabled the ‘consider as read within 5 seconds’ command and would delete the offending headers as they appeared in the preview pane without opening them (I could read them later in the archives). (...)
• [Respondent No. 05]: ‘One can easily skirt such incompatibilities by restricting the content of ones e-mails to plain text, this also helps keep down message size and thus conserves bandwidth. Quite a few users with older equipment can’t read anything other than plain text in any case, and very little is lost by the absence of fancy fonts and multi-coloured text in my opinion.
• [Richard]: ‘Indeed … and while we are at it we might as well dispense with colour photography and colour movies as [quote] ‘very little is lost by the absence of multi-colour’ [endquote]. And then we might as well cut out the sound from movies and go back to sub-titles. And more … we could dispense with modern cars (when one lifts the bonnet it is difficult to find the engine with all those glamorous attachments) and revert to a ‘Ford 10’, for example. Or then again … go back to the horse and cart as [quote] ‘this also helps to keep down’ [endquote] pollution [quote] ‘and thus conserves’ [endquote] resources. Goodness me … there is no end to the things we could revert to, given that [quote] ‘very little is lost by the absence of ...’. [endquote] whatever personal hang-up. Let us dispense with computers altogether and go back to postal mail … or carrier pigeon … or a running man with a message stick.
But in the meanwhile, those [quote] ‘quite a few users with older equipment’ [endquote] who [quote] ‘can’t read anything other than plain text’ [endquote] could avail themselves to the opportunity presented by the monopoly-busting war started by ‘Netscape’ and download for free an E-Mail programme that is capable of reading something [quote] ‘other than plain text’ [endquote].
• [Respondent No. 05]: ‘The Netscape and M$ mail clients are HTML-capable, but inferior in most other respects to many plain text competitors, including Eudora in my opinion. Incidentally, the latest version of the Juno mailer that I use is HTML-capable – I can read your submissions perfectly, but find that colour and/or fancy fonts add nothing to the effect of informal correspondence and in fact comprise a distraction to its content.
• [Richard]: ‘If you are distracted so easily – and can only discern content when reading text-only – then it would appear that you have a problem that you are (unsuccessfully) attempting to dump onto me for a solution. *Are you saying* that the Internet at large is beyond your ken? [emphasis added].
(Richard, List B, No.05a, 30 Sep 1999).

What utter grotesquerie it is how ‘Sock Puppet Skye’ could assert, in their accompanying condemnatory judgement, that those highlighted-for-convenience words are a verbal brute bullying which is but unconstructive criticism – and they communicate with their dog better than that argumentative, accusing, pontificating, insulting, belittling, sarcastic, judgemental, condescending, snide, hammering repetitious bullying – insofar as it is not relating to one’s fellow human being without malice and sorrow at all but, rather, is perpetuating it monstrously (and that, whilst they used to think Richard had something important to share, they realise now they are no longer deluded and can thus learn nothing in dialogue with him except how to perpetuate repulsion because that is what his whole manner evokes) as his ‘belief’ in his harmlessness is just that, a ‘belief’, for it reflects in none of his words.

There are 65 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the ninth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
What is the point!
[...]

That quote has been doctored – that exclamation mark has replaced the question mark in the original – and it is only the first six words of a twenty-word question anyway.

Here is the actual part-quote, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on October 01 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘For example, an instinctive response to avert a danger, and then after-thought: ‘I could have died’.
• [Richard]: ‘Yet, on the whole, that is rarely a dispassionate ‘after-thought’ is it not? Mr. Joseph LeDoux has demonstrated that the amygdala non-cognitively generates instinctual fear (a passion) 14 milliseconds before any sensory information gets to the cerebral cortex. This fear response simultaneously releases adrenaline, which floods the body and the cerebral cortex, before thinking begins. Thus the thoughts are fear-filled thoughts ... which is hardly the stuff of a dispassionate ‘after-thought’ created ‘self’.
• [Respondent]: ‘True. In those 14 milliseconds there is no self either.
• [Richard]: ‘You are very quick to re-state your conclusion here ... are you of the ‘Tabula Rasa’ school of philosophy?
• [Respondent]: ‘I don’t know.
• [Richard]: ‘Do you want to know? Are sentient beings born a ‘clean slate’ or not? Is this not an important issue? *What is the point* of building an elaborate hypothesis if the premise it is based on is erroneous? There has been much research into this growing science in these last few years’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.33, 01 Oct 1999).

What ilk of personality is it who would copy-paste the first four words of a twenty-word question, replace a question mark with an exclamation mark, then present the resultant bastardisation as evidence that proves a verbal brute bullying which is but unconstructive criticism – and that they communicate with their dog better than that argumentative, accusing, pontificating, insulting, belittling, sarcastic, judgemental, condescending, snide, hammering repetitious bullying – insofar as it is not relating to one’s fellow human being without malice and sorrow at all but, rather, is perpetuating it monstrously (and that, whilst they used to think Richard had something important to share, they realise now they are no longer deluded and can thus learn nothing in dialogue with him except how to perpetuate repulsion because that is what his whole manner evokes) as his ‘belief’ in his harmlessness is just that, a ‘belief’, for it reflects in none of his words?

Here is a useful word:

• trickster (n.): a person who practises trickery (=‘the use of tricks; deception’); a rogue, a cheat. ~ (Oxford English Dictionary).

There are 64 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the tenth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
Is this not an important issue?
[...]

Here is that quote, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on October 01 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘For example, an instinctive response to avert a danger, and then after-thought: ‘I could have died’.
• [Richard]: ‘Yet, on the whole, that is rarely a dispassionate ‘after-thought’ is it not? Mr. Joseph LeDoux has demonstrated that the amygdala non-cognitively generates instinctual fear (a passion) 14 milliseconds before any sensory information gets to the cerebral cortex. This fear response simultaneously releases adrenaline, which floods the body and the cerebral cortex, before thinking begins. Thus the thoughts are fear-filled thoughts ... which is hardly the stuff of a dispassionate ‘after-thought’ created ‘self’.
• [Respondent]: ‘True. In those 14 milliseconds there is no self either.
• [Richard]: ‘You are very quick to re-state your conclusion here ... are you of the ‘Tabula Rasa’ school of philosophy?
• [Respondent]: ‘I don’t know.
• [Richard]: ‘Do you want to know? Are sentient beings born a ‘clean slate’ or not? *Is this not an important issue?* What is the point of building an elaborate hypothesis if the premise it is based on is erroneous? There has been much research into this growing science in these last few years’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.33, 01 Oct 1999).

What rank bizarrerie it is how ‘Sock Puppet Chaz’ could assert, in their accompanying condemnatory judgement, that those highlighted-for-convenience words are an example of an antisocial antagonistic correspondence chock full of disrespect, belittlement, unfriendliness, unkindness, arrogance, callous debunking, cynicism, sarcasm, provocation, feigned exasperation, downright unpleasantness, haughty indignation, phoney gratitude, exaggerated exclamations, denial, feigned resignation, fault finding, phoney politeness, ridicule, personal attack, browbeating and above all a total obsession with the word ‘YOU’.

There are 63 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the eleventh line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
Am I to understand ...
[...]

Here is that part-quote, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on October 01 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent No. 12]: ‘Pay for View Special – $25.00; Richard knowledge vs. Konrad knowledge. Tonight at 9 P.M.
• [Richard]: ‘Whosoever scorns the lessons of history, with a mimicked disdain for knowledge, commit themselves to doggedly re-making the blunders of their illustrious predecessors.
• [Respondent]: ‘If by the illustrious predecessor you mean K, then, I would like to make the following point that I made to Konrad: Krishnamurti’s disparagement is of knowledge as the self, not of knowledge per se. He very mentions that knowledge is essential to function in the world, to do a job, to go from one place to another. But knowledge as becoming is what he is objecting to.
(...)
• [Respondent]: ‘Knowledge as being doesn’t exist.
• [Richard]: ‘Does this knowledge of yours – [quote] ‘knowledge as being doesn’t exist’ [endquote] – not fall under the category of [quote] ‘knowledge as the self’ [endquote] and therefore worthy of [quote] ‘disparagement’ and/or being ‘objected to’ [endquote]?
• [Respondent]: ‘No. This is not knowledge. It is a simple fact that being is outside the purview of knowledge.
• [Richard]: ‘*Am I to understand* that when I report that knowledge as ‘being’ does exist as an easily observable fact – and verified from personal experience – it is to be disparagingly called ‘knowledge’ and is ‘objected to’ (especially on this Mailing List) ... but that when you read in a dead man’s book that [quote] ‘knowledge as being doesn’t exist’ [endquote] this psittacism then miraculously becomes [quote] ‘a simple fact’ [endquote] for you?’ [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.33, 01 Oct 1999).

What out-and-out weirdity it is ‘Sock Puppet Chaz’ could assert, in their accompanying condemnatory judgement, that those highlighted-for-convenience words are an example of an antisocial antagonistic correspondence chock full of disrespect, belittlement, unfriendliness, unkindness, arrogance, callous debunking, cynicism, sarcasm, provocation, feigned exasperation, downright unpleasantness, haughty indignation, phoney gratitude, exaggerated exclamations, denial, feigned resignation, fault finding, phoney politeness, ridicule, personal attack, browbeating and above all a total obsession with the word ‘YOU’.

There are 62 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the twelfth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
Are you also going to say ...
[...]

Here is that quote, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on October 01 1999.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘You are very quick to re-state your conclusion here ... are you of the ‘Tabula Rasa’ school of philosophy?
• [Respondent]: ‘I don’t know.
• [Richard]: ‘Do you want to know? Are sentient beings born a ‘clean slate’ or not? Is this not an important issue? What is the point of building an elaborate hypothesis if the premise it is based on is erroneous? There has been much research into this growing science in these last few years.
• [Respondent]: ‘Actually, it is the reaction: ‘I was afraid and I don’t like it ...’ that creates the self.
• [Richard]: ‘Okay then: why was ‘I afraid’ in the first place (before the thought ‘I don’t like it’)? Are you saying that to be fearful (purely fearful) is to be selfless?
• [Respondent]: ‘‘I afraid’ is also a response of the memory.
• [Richard]: ‘Okay then: why is there fear in the first place (before the [quote] ‘I afraid’ [endquote] that is [quote] ‘also the response of memory’ [endquote] which comes before [quote] ‘I don’t like it’ [endquote] which you say creates the self)? Are you saying that to be fearful (purely fearful) is to be selfless?
• [Respondent]: ‘In the moment of pure fear, there is no fear.
• [Richard]: ‘*Are you also going to say*: ‘in the moment of pure malice, there is no malice’; ‘in the moment of pure abhorrence, there is no abhorrence’; ‘in the moment of pure acerbity, there is no acerbity’; ‘in the moment of pure acrimony, there is no acrimony’; ‘in the moment of pure aggression, there is no aggression’; ‘in the moment of pure anger, there is no anger’; ‘in the moment of pure animosity, there is no animosity’; ‘in the moment of pure antagonism, there is no antagonism’; ‘in the moment of pure antipathy, there is no antipathy’; ‘in the moment of pure aversion, there is no aversion; ‘in the moment of pure bellicosity, there is no bellicosity’; ‘in the moment of pure belligerence, there is no belligerence’; ‘in the moment of pure bitchiness, there is no bitchiness’; ‘in the moment of pure cantankerousness, there is no cantankerousness’; ‘in the moment of pure bitterness, there is no bitterness’; ‘in the moment of pure cattiness, there is no cattiness’; ‘in the moment of pure despisal, there is no despisal’; ‘in the moment of pure detestation, there is no detestation’; ‘in the moment of pure disgust, there is no ‘disgust; ‘in the moment of pure enmity, there is no enmity’; ‘in the moment of pure envy, there is no envy’; ‘in the moment of pure evil, there is no evil’; ‘in the moment of pure hate, there is no hate’; ‘in the moment of pure hostility, there is no hostility’; ‘in the moment of pure loathing, there is no loathing’; ‘in the moment of pure moodiness, there is no moodiness; ‘in the moment of pure rancour, there is no rancour’; ‘in the moment of pure repugnance, there is no repugnance; ‘in the moment of pure spitefulness, there is no spite’; ‘in the moment of pure vengefulness, there is no vengeance; ‘in the moment of pure wrath, there is no wrath’ and so on and so on?’ [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.33, 01 Oct 1999).

It is unqualifiedly bizarre how ‘Sock Puppet Ron’ could assert, in their accompanying condemnatory judgement (and follow-up emails), that those highlighted-for-convenience words are an example of nothing but the vain self protective attacks of an ignorant fool – inasmuch the nonsensical, valueless, nit-picking, personal attacks; the twisting of facts, one-upmanship and avoidance of clear and logical questions, makes it obvious the guy has a major communication problem (in that he is woefully incompetent, vain and arrogant and sorely lacking in basic communication skills) – and where the context and manner in which he uses the words ‘oh’ and ‘umm’ smacks of an immature and insolent attitude, such as to not waste precious time replying to his pretentious denials of what could not be more obviously the dirty work of nothing but a clown.

There are 61 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the thirteenth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
but that is irrelevant to what you say, eh?
[...]

Here is that part-quote, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on October 01 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘We are discussing your perceived disparagement of knowledge by K. And in that context, self of animals is besides the point, in my opinion.
• [Richard]: ‘But it was you who started this context ... I was having a dialogue with No. 12 and you bought in to tell me that you did not think that the ‘self’ is established via instincts. It is a bit rich to now try to tell me that it is [quote] ‘besides the point’ [endquote] as if I have strayed from the subject ... I have stayed right with the topic all the way through. Allow me to refresh your memory: Viz.:

[Respondent No. 12]: ‘The self is established in confusion’.
[Richard]: ‘Hmm ... given the way that you responded (above) it would appear that for you this is true. Howsoever, the ‘self’ is established via the genetically encoded instinctual passions that all sentient beings are born with ... commonly known as the ‘survival instinct’.
[Respondent]: ‘I don’t think that the ‘self’ is established via instincts. All animals have instincts, but only the human has a self. Isn’t ‘self’ really (and literally) an after-thought? For example, humans instinctively respond to certain situations and then the after-thought actually creates the self? For example, an instinctive response to avert a danger, and then after-thought: ‘I could have died’. The latter, I think, is what constitutes the self. Similarly with pleasurable activities: it is the desire to have more that creates the self’. [endquote].

Shall I proceed? Yes? So, is it that all the investigation, by other human beings observing animals both in captivity and in the wild, is just a waste of time according to you? Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says that the self is a product of thought trapped in psychological time and coincidentally you probably also have this as your own discovery ... and that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan and/or Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti might have walked this way, *but that is irrelevant to what you say, eh?* Yet Mr. Gotama the Sakyan did not know anything about what science is now mapping in the human brain ... and neither did Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti (most of these discoveries have occurred since his demise and he only read detective novels when alive anyway).

Why do you ignore the evidence of science?’ [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.33, 01 Oct 1999)..

What outright grotesquerie it is how ‘Sock Puppet Skye’ could assert, in their accompanying condemnatory judgement, that those highlighted-for-convenience words are a verbal brute bullying which is but unconstructive criticism – and they communicate with their dog better than that argumentative, accusing, pontificating, insulting, belittling, sarcastic, judgemental, condescending, snide, hammering repetitious bullying – insofar as it is not relating to one’s fellow human being without malice and sorrow at all but, rather, is perpetuating it monstrously (and that, whilst they used to think Richard had something important to share, they realise now they are no longer deluded and can thus learn nothing in dialogue with him except how to perpetuate repulsion because that is what his whole manner evokes) as his ‘belief’ in his harmlessness is just that, a ‘belief’, for it reflects in none of his words.

There are 60 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the fourteenth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
Shall I proceed?
[...]

Here is that question, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on October 01 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘We are discussing your perceived disparagement of knowledge by K. And in that context, self of animals is besides the point, in my opinion.
• [Richard]: ‘But it was you who started this context ... I was having a dialogue with No. 12 and you bought in to tell me that you did not think that the ‘self’ is established via instincts. It is a bit rich to now try to tell me that it is [quote] ‘besides the point’ [endquote] as if I have strayed from the subject ... I have stayed right with the topic all the way through. Allow me to refresh your memory: Viz.:

[Respondent No. 12]: ‘The self is established in confusion’.
[Richard]: ‘Hmm ... given the way that you responded (above) it would appear that for you this is true. Howsoever, the ‘self’ is established via the genetically encoded instinctual passions that all sentient beings are born with ... commonly known as the ‘survival instinct’.
[Respondent]: ‘I don’t think that the ‘self’ is established via instincts. All animals have instincts, but only the human has a self. Isn’t ‘self’ really (and literally) an after-thought? For example, humans instinctively respond to certain situations and then the after-thought actually creates the self? For example, an instinctive response to avert a danger, and then after-thought: ‘I could have died’. The latter, I think, is what constitutes the self. Similarly with pleasurable activities: it is the desire to have more that creates the self’. [endquote].

*Shall I proceed?* Yes? So, is it that all the investigation, by other human beings observing animals both in captivity and in the wild, is just a waste of time according to you? Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says that the self is a product of thought trapped in psychological time and coincidentally you probably also have this as your own discovery ... and that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan and/or Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti might have walked this way, but that is irrelevant to what you say, eh? Yet Mr. Gotama the Sakyan did not know anything about what science is now mapping in the human brain ... and neither did Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti (most of these discoveries have occurred since his demise and he only read detective novels when alive anyway).

Why do you ignore the evidence of science?’ [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.33, 01 Oct 1999).

What unmitigated bizarrerie it is how ‘Sock Puppet Chaz’ could assert, in their accompanying condemnatory judgement, that those highlighted-for-convenience words are an example of an antisocial antagonistic correspondence chock full of disrespect, belittlement, unfriendliness, unkindness, arrogance, callous debunking, cynicism, sarcasm, provocation, feigned exasperation, downright unpleasantness, haughty indignation, phoney gratitude, exaggerated exclamations, denial, feigned resignation, fault finding, phoney politeness, ridicule, personal attack, browbeating and above all a total obsession with the word ‘YOU’.

There are 59 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the fifteenth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
If I may point out?
[...]

Here is that question, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 21 1999.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘I neither need ‘good luck’ nor does ‘luck’ exist outside of passionate human imagination. What I am today is the result of eleven years of diligence, application, patience, perseverance, determination and much internal and external observation, investigation, uncovering and discovering. I know where I am at, where I came from and how I got here.
• [Respondent]: ‘Pay for View Special – $25.00; Richard knowledge vs. Konrad knowledge. Tonight at 9 P.M.
• [Richard]: ‘Whosoever scorns the lessons of history, with a mimicked disdain for knowledge, commit themselves to doggedly re-making the blunders of their illustrious predecessors.
• [Respondent]: ‘The blunder is belief that psychological time is actual.
• [Richard]: ‘Nowhere, in all my reading of the ‘illustrious predecessors’ have I ever found them to be making the mistake of taking psychological time to be actual. All of them, in their own way and their own words, stated that this (essentially self-centred) approach to the question of what time is, is the very problem that they had become free of. What books do you read that inclines you to say that the blunder which they make is the ‘belief that psychological time is actual’?
• [Respondent]: ‘The blunder (apparent from proclamation that ‘I know where I am, where I came from and how I got there’) is the belief that psychological time is actual. The confusion concerns the nature of self.
• [Richard]: ‘*If I may point out?* You are simply flogging an empty issue over and over again ... we have discussed this before, you and I. Nevertheless, I am only too happy to re-present it for you. Viz.:

• This flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware knows where this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware is at, where this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware came from and how this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware got here. 
Now can we attend to the subject under discussion? Which is: whosoever scorns the lessons of history, with a mimicked disdain for knowledge, commit themselves to doggedly re-making the blunders of their illustrious predecessors’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.12f, 21 Sept 1999).

What stark weirdity it is how ‘Sock Puppet Skye’ could assert, in their accompanying condemnatory judgement, that those highlighted-for-convenience words are a verbal brute bullying which is but unconstructive criticism – and they communicate with their dog better than that argumentative, accusing, pontificating, insulting, belittling, sarcastic, judgemental, condescending, snide, hammering repetitious bullying – insofar as it is not relating to one’s fellow human being without malice and sorrow at all but, rather, is perpetuating it monstrously (and that, whilst they used to think Richard had something important to share, they realise now they are no longer deluded and can thus learn nothing in dialogue with him except how to perpetuate repulsion because that is what his whole manner evokes) as his ‘belief’ in his harmlessness is just that, a ‘belief’, for it reflects in none of his words.

There are 58 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the sixteenth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
according to you?
[...]

Here is that part-question, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on October 01 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘We are discussing your perceived disparagement of knowledge by K. And in that context, self of animals is besides the point, in my opinion.
• [Richard]: ‘But it was you who started this context ... I was having a dialogue with No. 12 and you bought in to tell me that you did not think that the ‘self’ is established via instincts. It is a bit rich to now try to tell me that it is [quote] ‘besides the point’ [endquote] as if I have strayed from the subject ... I have stayed right with the topic all the way through. Allow me to refresh your memory: Viz.:

[Respondent No. 12]: ‘The self is established in confusion’.
[Richard]: ‘Hmm ... given the way that you responded (above) it would appear that for you this is true. Howsoever, the ‘self’ is established via the genetically encoded instinctual passions that all sentient beings are born with ... commonly known as the ‘survival instinct’.
[Respondent]: ‘I don’t think that the ‘self’ is established via instincts. All animals have instincts, but only the human has a self. Isn’t ‘self’ really (and literally) an after-thought? For example, humans instinctively respond to certain situations and then the after-thought actually creates the self? For example, an instinctive response to avert a danger, and then after-thought: ‘I could have died’. The latter, I think, is what constitutes the self. Similarly with pleasurable activities: it is the desire to have more that creates the self’. [endquote].

Shall I proceed? Yes? So, is it that all the investigation, by other human beings observing animals both in captivity and in the wild, is just a waste of time *according to you?* Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says that the self is a product of thought trapped in psychological time and coincidentally you probably also have this as your own discovery ... and that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan and/or Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti might have walked this way, but that is irrelevant to what you say, eh? Yet Mr. Gotama the Sakyan did not know anything about what science is now mapping in the human brain ... and neither did Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti (most of these discoveries have occurred since his demise and he only read detective novels when alive anyway).

Why do you ignore the evidence of science?’ [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.33, 01 Oct 1999).

Curiously enough, the second version of ‘Sock Puppet Skye’s long list of [quote] “a HUGE assortment of epithets that made mine look piss-weak” [endquote], which they craftily state [quote] “appeared on the AF list a few years later” [endquote] – whereas it was, in fact, actually posted by ‘Sock Puppet Charlie’ (aka ‘Chaz’) on June 27, 2001 – had reverted to being true to the original (albeit still missing the last eleven words). Viz.:

From: Charlie Bragg
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 9:34 PM
To: actualfreedom@listbot.com
Subject: Disrespect
Richard wrote:
[...]
Is this the extent of your understanding of yourself?
[...]

Notwithstanding that unexpected truthfulness, when the third version of ‘Sock Puppet Skye’s long list of [quote] “a HUGE assortment of epithets that made mine look piss-weak” [endquote] was posted on October 24, 2004 – by their alter ego ‘Sock Puppet Xan’ (aka ‘Ron’ or ‘Ron X’) – a fabricated exclamatory expression had been gratuitously appended to it. Viz.:

From: xan xuereb
Date: Sun Oct 24 2004 - 04:34:47 AEST
To: actualfreedom@topica.com
Subject: Strange blindness
Richard wrote:
[...]
Good grief! Is this the extent of your understanding of yourself?
[...]

Here are the three versions, juxtaposed, for the sake of ease of comparison:

1. This the extent of your understanding of yourself?
2. Is this the extent of your understanding of yourself?
3. Good grief! Is this the extent of your understanding of yourself?

It would appear that, not being content with ‘Sock Puppet Skye’s doctoring of the original question, for their first version, ‘Sock Puppet Chaz’ re-doctored it, for their second version, only to have ‘Sock Puppet Ron’ re-doctor that re-doctored version of the initially doctored version for their own particular doctored version.

Goodness knows what might happen if ‘Sock Puppet Neemyth’ were to ever get their hands upon it.

Speaking of which – and bearing in mind that one of the puppeteer’s puppets spoke of being [quote] “much influenced by the Seth Material” [endquote] and that [quote] “Seth had such an impact on my early years” [endquote] – then Richard’s droll comment at the end of an email on July 22 2000 is probably well worth a re-post here. Viz.:

• [Chaz]: ‘No, I am not weaselling out of it [out of answering the one and only question in the original post] simply lacking time and looking forward to your responses to many earlier questions which may solve these misunderstandings as well – if you are so inclined.
• [Richard]: ‘If I may ask? What “many earlier questions” are you referring to? The last post you wrote to me before I went off-line contained this paragraph:
[Chaz]: ‘What I am most interested in, Richard, is bring forth some rather unusual questions about the nature of what is ‘Actual’ [questions about the energies which constitute matter ‘as we know it’ (through the senses), and the various speeds and properties of substance that the senses are unable to register]. The questions I’m preparing are having a profound impact on new agers, and it would be interesting to see these questions from the absolute reality of an Actualist’s point of view’. [Re: Imagination; 14 June 2000; message No. 1078 in the archives].
• [Richard]: Maybe I have missed these questions whilst being off-line ... or maybe one of your other personalities was supposed to send them and did not (bearing in mind that you have four internet aliases). If so, being a multidimensional personality does seem to have some disadvantages ... in this post alone you are under the impression that (a) this post is an answer to my original post when in fact it does not answer the one and only question in that original post ... and (b) you are under the impression that you had explained why you entitled your previous post ‘The Wisdom Of A Not So Bodiless Spirit’ (message No. 1210 in the archives) when you had not explained why at all ... and (c) you are under the impression that I had asked you before how much time you had when I had not ever asked that question of you before at all ... and (d) you are under the impression that you have asked me “many earlier questions” when it would appear that you have not ... as far as my records show you were “preparing” to ask questions.
Incidentally, I read the ‘Over Soul Seven’ trilogy back in 1987 and, as far as I can recollect, the main character of the story (‘Cyprus’) kept on forgetting who she/he was or where she/he was or when she/he was or what she/he was going to do – or when or how or why – and what she/he had done ... or when or how or why.
Whereas it is so simple being this flesh and blood body only ... and salubrious’. (Richard, The Actual Freedom List, No.10a, 27 Jul 2000).

And, just for the record, in response to their musings about how it may be that one of their other personalities was supposed to send those questions being prepared, and did not, the response was as follows:

From: Charlie Bragg
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000
To: actualfreedom@listbot.com
Subject: Re: The Wisdom Of A Bodiless Spirit
Actually yes I was referring to those many question one of my aliases asked you on the K-list, just before you went off line.

Needless is it to add that no such questions (such as about the energies which constitute matter and the various speeds and properties of substance that the senses are unable to register or their ilk) were ever asked at all on the mailing list referred to, let alone in the period mentioned, by that particular alias (‘Sock Puppet Skye’)?

Which tends to lend some credence to the main character (the puppeteer) forgetting who they are or where they are or when they are or what they are going to do – or when or how or why – and what they have done or when or how or why.

Be that as it may: here is the actual part-question, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on October 01 1999.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘(...) To say that something [quote] ‘is an oxymoron’ [endquote] is, if not a disparagement, at least suggesting it is a worthless contradiction in terms.
• [Respondent]: ‘I think we covered this disparagement point earlier.
• [Richard]: ‘You may think so ... but I cannot call your responses an investigation, an exploration, an examination ... let alone an uncovering.
• [Respondent]: ‘K distinguishes between two different kinds of knowledge and that makes sense to me.
• [Richard]: ‘I know that it makes sense to you ... yet we are here to investigate, are we not? Why does it make sense to you? How does it make sense to you? If knowledge as ‘being’ cannot be known (given that you dutifully repeat that it is outside the purview of knowledge) then how can you know that what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says is correct? Have you found out for yourself? And if so, why can it not be known?
I say it can be known ... and that I do know it. And what do you do with the opportunity to discuss the matter with a living human being? You do not pursue the subject to ascertain for yourself whether a now dead man’s understanding is correct or incorrect in the light of recent biological discoveries. And yet you say that you ‘observe with the objectivity of a scientist’!
• [Respondent]: ‘That doesn’t mean the I disparage knowledge. It is very factual. I observe it with the objectivity of a scientist.
• [Richard]: ‘Good. Can you apply this astuteness to ‘knowledge as being’?
• [Respondent]: ‘Knowledge is always dualistic; being by its very nature is not. Knowledge, hence cannot be applied to being.
• [Richard]: ‘*Is this the extent of your understanding of yourself*, your life and what it is to be a human being? That ‘knowledge is always dualistic’?
May I ask? Are you of that school that says with finality: ‘The Truth cannot be known’?

If so, do you see that you shut the door on further investigation?’ [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.33, 01 Oct 1999).

At this juncture it is pertinent to note that, upon having it demonstrably pointed out by Richard on October 27, 2004 that more than a few of the quotes were doctored so as to impute passion/emotion, ‘Sock Puppet Ron’ (aka ‘Xan’ or ‘Ron X’) insisted that all these excerpts were precisely copied and pasted. Viz.:

• [Ron]: ‘I’m not going to waste my precious time (...) lets just leave it to anyone who’s interested in contacting the members still on that Krishnamurti list if they wish confirmation that *the excerpts were precisely copied and pasted* from their own correspondences with you’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, The Actual Freedom Mailing List, No.48, 28 Oct 2004).

It is obvious that ‘Sock Puppet Ron’ was lying.

And it is also pertinent to note that ‘Sock Puppet Skye’ has recently (December 14 2008) made out that Richard denied these quotes were his. Viz.:

• [Skye]: ‘He was using a HUGE assortment of epithets that made mine look piss-weak and I even collected a long list of them from his posts and sent them back in during those times, to prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking (...) it was amazing to see him suddenly jump out and DENY! they were his when they appeared on the AF list a few years later’. [endquote]. (groups.yahoo.com/groupactualfreedom/messages/3840; Date: Sun Dec 14, 2008; Subject: Re: I loved [No. 53]).

Yet upon even a cursory reading of that email exchange at the above link (October 28 2004) – as well as the one before it (October 27 2004) and the one following it (November 05 2004) – it is plain to see that Richard never once denied they were his as, in order to demonstrably point out that more than a few were doctored so as to impute passion/emotion, he provided a fully-referenced duly-annotated copy-paste of three original emails from whence three of the doctored quotes were sourced.

Again, it is so obvious that ‘Sock Puppet Skye’ is a liar it is initially somewhat difficult to digest the enormity of the chutzpah required to publicly confect ‘bizarro-world’ bull of such magnitude out of nothing.

Viz.:

• chutzpah (Yiddish): unbelievable gall; insolence; audacity. ~ (Princeton’s WordNet 3.0).

There are 56 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the eighteenth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
Do you take me to be an idiot?
[...]

Here is that question, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on October 01 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Fear as we know is but an after-thought.
• [Richard]: ‘Pure fear is an affective feeling ... a passion. It has nothing to do with thought.
• [Respondent]: ‘There is just the preparedness of the body to meet with situations.
• [Richard]: ‘You are way out on your own in the scientific field of biology here, because [quote] ‘the preparedness of the body to meet with situations’ [endquote] is known as the ‘freeze or fight or flight’ reaction ... and the body is brimming with adrenaline. In other words: pure fear.
This is what science looks like ... not that pseudo-science you are coming out with.
• [Respondent]: ‘Krishnamurti correctly points out: word fear is not the fear.
• [Richard]: ‘Of course the word ‘fear’ is not fear itself ... it is a name for it so that we can communicate. *Do you take me to be an idiot?* Some other correspondent came out with similar twaddle (offering me the word ‘coffee’ instead of the actual substance) and this is just as silly. Look, fear is the adrenaline coursing through your veins; the heart pumping furiously; the palms sweaty; the face blanched white; knuckles gripped; body tensed and so on and so on. Observing this, in both oneself and in others – and in animals – this is [quote] ‘observing with the objectivity of a scientist’ [endquote].

And all sentient beings are born with this fear’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.33, 01 Oct 1999).

What rank grotesquerie it is how ‘Sock Puppet Ron’ could assert, in their accompanying condemnatory judgement (and follow-up emails), that those highlighted-for-convenience words are an example of nothing but the vain self protective attacks of an ignorant fool – inasmuch the nonsensical, valueless, nit-picking, personal attacks; the twisting of facts, one-upmanship and avoidance of clear and logical questions, makes it obvious the guy has a major communication problem (in that he is woefully incompetent, vain and arrogant and sorely lacking in basic communication skills) – and where the context and manner in which he uses the words ‘oh’ and ‘umm’ smacks of an immature and insolent attitude, such as to not waste precious time replying to his pretentious denials of what could not be more obviously the dirty work of nothing but a clown.

There are 55 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the nineteenth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
did you not?
[...]

Oddly enough, for it is such a trivial thing, when the second version of ‘Sock Puppet Skye’s long list of [quote] “a HUGE assortment of epithets that made mine look piss-weak” [endquote] was posted on The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list by ‘Sock Puppet Charlie’ (aka ‘Chaz’) on June 27, 2001 an ellipsis had been gratuitously appended to it. Viz.:

From: Charlie Bragg
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 9:34 PM
To: actualfreedom@listbot.com
Subject: Disrespect
Richard wrote:
[...]
...did you not?
[...]

And when the third version of ‘Sock Puppet Skye’s long list of [quote] “a HUGE assortment of epithets that made mine look piss-weak’ [endquote] was posted on October 24, 2004 – by their alter ego ‘Sock Puppet Xan’ (aka ‘Ron’ or ‘Ron X’) – it too had that ellipsis gratuitously appended to it. Viz.:

From: xan xuereb
Date: Sun Oct 24 2004 - 04:34:47 AEST
To: actualfreedom@topica.com
Subject: Strange blindness
Richard wrote:
[...]
...did you not?
[...]

Here is that part-question, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 21 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘If this entity wants to become free or enlightened, then that want itself is more of the same, and hence inherently futile.
• [Richard]: ‘If I may point out? This is ‘ancient wisdom’ (and almost central to Buddhism’s tenets) ... thus you are following a road-map after all. I would not be here today if the ‘I’ that was had not wanted peace-on-earth like ‘he’ had never wanted anything before. Which means – as ‘he’ revved up desire until it became obsessional – that ‘he’ headed 180 degrees in the opposite direction to the ‘Tried and True’.
Consequently I know why it is the ‘Tried and Failed’.
• [Respondent]: ‘That doesn’t mean that a normal ‘I’ shouldn’t strive to do better in the physical world, to improve his performance, the quality of his work, his body, his intellect, etc.
• [Richard]: ‘Indeed ... I thoroughly appreciate and enjoy the benefits of technological progress. I do not disparage knowledge at all (including knowledge as ‘becoming’ and knowledge as ‘being’). The more information one has the better it is to make a considered appraisal ... this rapid access to resources around the world (across cultures and down through history and between peers) has never been possible before. If it were not for mass communication (ready access to books, magazines, electronic media and ease of travel so as to compare notes) I would not be here today (‘I’ would be still trapped in ‘my’ culture’s mores).
• [Respondent]: ‘K’s objection to knowledge as a means to become more free, etc. is very logical, in my opinion.
• [Richard]: ‘Hmm ... and you found Mr. Albert Einstein’s objection to the common view of space (as delineated by a fruit-bowl for example) to be ‘very logical’ as well, *did you not?*’ [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.33, 21 Sep 1999).

What inimitable bizarrerie it is how ‘Sock Puppet Ron’ could assert, in their accompanying condemnatory judgement (and follow-up emails), that those highlighted-for-convenience words are an example of nothing but the vain self protective attacks of an ignorant fool – inasmuch the nonsensical, valueless, nit-picking, personal attacks; the twisting of facts, one-upmanship and avoidance of clear and logical questions, makes it obvious the guy has a major communication problem (in that he is woefully incompetent, vain and arrogant and sorely lacking in basic communication skills) – and where the context and manner in which he uses the words ‘oh’ and ‘umm’ smacks of an immature and insolent attitude, such as to not waste precious time replying to his pretentious denials of what could not be more obviously the dirty work of nothing but a clown.

There are 54 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is twentieth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
Some other correspondent came out with similar twaddle and this is just as silly ... and then I get told that I am arrogant!
[...]

As that (unreferenced) quote makes no grammatical sense a closer inspection reveals that it is actually a stitched-together composite formed by extracting a sentence and a part-sentence from two different emails written to two different co-respondents on two different days – to wit: Respondent No. 33 (October 01 1999) and Respondent No. 38 (September 29 1999) – and deleting ten parenthesised words from the sentence, plus deleting its period, and then inserting an extra first person pronoun in the part-sentence, deleting two parenthesised words, plus adding the exclamation mark.

Here is the actual first sentence (complete with the ten parenthesised words), embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on October 01 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Fear as we know is but an after-thought.
• [Richard]: ‘Pure fear is an affective feeling ... a passion. It has nothing to do with thought.
• [Respondent]: ‘There is just the preparedness of the body to meet with situations.
• [Richard]: ‘You are way out on your own in the scientific field of biology here, because [quote] ‘the preparedness of the body to meet with situations’ [endquote] is known as the ‘freeze or fight or flight’ reaction ... and the body is brimming with adrenaline. In other words: pure fear.
This is what science looks like ... not that pseudo-science you are coming out with.
• [Respondent]: ‘Krishnamurti correctly points out: word fear is not the fear.
• [Richard]: ‘Of course the word ‘fear’ is not fear itself ... it is a name for it so that we can communicate. Do you take me to be an idiot? *Some other correspondent came out with similar twaddle* (offering me the word ‘coffee’ instead of the actual substance) *and this is just as silly.* Look, fear is the adrenaline coursing through your veins; the heart pumping furiously; the palms sweaty; the face blanched white; knuckles gripped; body tensed and so on and so on. Observing this, in both oneself and in others – and in animals – this is [quote] ‘observing with the objectivity of a scientist’ [endquote]. And all sentient beings are born with this fear’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.33, 01 Oct 1999).

And here is the actual part-sentence (with neither that extra first person pronoun nor the exclamation mark), embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 29 1999.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘Are you saying that the possibility of peace-on-earth is so remote that one should give up before even trying? Thus all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides will go on for ever and a day.
• [Respondent]: ‘No, not saying that. I am saying that all the human effort thus far does not seem to have fixed the problem and the problem seems to be complex indeed.
• [Richard]: ‘Okay ... ‘all the human effort thus far does not seem to have fixed the problem’ are the key-words. I have discovered something entirely new in human history ... and mostly, when I report my experience to my fellow human beings, people wish to retry ‘all the human effort’ which, as you so rightly say ‘thus far does not seem to have fixed the problem’. For clarity I call it the ‘Tried and Failed’ ... *and then get told that I am arrogant* (or whatever)’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.38, 29 Sep 1999).

Curiously enough, when the second version of ‘Sock Puppet Skye’s long list of [quote] ‘a HUGE assortment of epithets that made mine look piss-weak’ [endquote] was posted on The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list by ‘Sock Puppet Charlie’ (aka ‘Chaz’) on June 27, 2001 the part-sentence with that extra first person pronoun and added exclamation mark had been removed (and moved further down the page to become Quote No. 27), a period inserted at the end of the sentence (still sans the ten parenthesised words), and a double quotation mark appended to its beginning. Viz.:

From: Charlie Bragg
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 9:34 PM
To: actualfreedom@listbot.com
Subject: Disrespect
Richard wrote:
[...]
’Some other correspondent came out with similar twaddle and this is just as silly.
[...]

And when the third version of ‘Sock Puppet Skye’s long list of [quote] ‘a HUGE assortment of epithets that made mine look piss-weak’ [endquote] was posted on October 24, 2004 – by their alter ego ‘Sock Puppet Xan’ (aka ‘Ron’ or ‘Ron X’) – it too had that part-sentence with that extra first person pronoun and added exclamation mark removed (except it had become Quote No. 25 instead of being Quote No. 27), and a double quotation mark appended to its beginning.

What manner of a personator is it who would insist that [quote] ‘the excerpts were precisely copied and pasted’ [endquote] when they demonstrably are not, in this and many other cases, with more than a few of them even changing from version to version?

Here is a useful word:

• liar (n.): a person who lies (=‘presents a false statement; conveys a false impression’) or tells a falsehood; an untruthful person. ~ (Oxford English Dictionary).

There are 53 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the twenty-first line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
Look! ... Good grief!
[...]

As that (unreferenced) quote makes no grammatical sense it is obviously a stitched-together composite formed by extracting a word from the beginning of a sentence, adding an exclamation mark, inserting an ellipsis, then including a two-word expression from the beginning of another sentence and appending a second exclamation mark to it.

Given that almost all of the (unreferenced) quotes so far have come from the same post (Respondent No. 33; October 01 1999) the word ‘Look’ probably came from the one immediately above this one. Vis. :

• [Respondent]: ‘Krishnamurti correctly points out: word fear is not the fear.
• [Richard]: ‘Of course the word ‘fear’ is not fear itself ... it is a name for it so that we can communicate. Do you take me to be an idiot? Some other correspondent came out with similar twaddle (offering me the word ‘coffee’ instead of the actual substance) and this is just as silly. *Look*, fear is the adrenaline coursing through your veins; the heart pumping furiously; the palms sweaty; the face blanched white; knuckles gripped; body tensed and so on and so on. Observing this, in both oneself and in others – and in animals – this is [quote] ‘observing with the objectivity of a scientist’ [endquote]. And all sentient beings are born with this fear’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.33, 01 Oct 1999).

And the two-word expression probably came from the very first stitched-together composite at the top of this page (the one from three different emails written to three different co-respondents on three different days) ... to wit: Respondent No. 12 (September 22 1999). Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘If that whole movement [of psychological time] does not stop there is no silence and hence no listening. It is the poor in spirit that are blessed, not the rich in knowledge.
• [Richard]: ‘*Good grief* ... regurgitating a pseudo-Christian aphorism makes it evident that [quote] ‘that whole movement’ [endquote] has not stopped for you yet. This is ‘knowledge’ that you are spouting here ... and pathetic ‘knowledge’ at that’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.12f, 22 Sept 1999).

What kind of personeity is it who would be so imprudent as to stitch-together a composite formed by extracting a word from the beginning of a sentence, adding an exclamation mark, inserting an ellipsis, then including a two-word expression from the beginning of another sentence, appending a second exclamation mark to it, and then present the resultant bastardisation as evidence that proves an antisocial antagonistic correspondence chock full of disrespect, belittlement, unfriendliness, unkindness, arrogance, callous debunking, cynicism, sarcasm, provocation, feigned exasperation, downright unpleasantness, haughty indignation, phoney gratitude, exaggerated exclamations, denial, feigned resignation, fault finding, phoney politeness, ridicule, personal attack, browbeating and above all a total obsession with the word ‘YOU’?

Here is a useful word:

• fool (n.): a person who behaves or thinks imprudently (=‘foolishly; rashly’) or unwisely (=‘lacking sound judgement’); a silly person. ~ (Oxford English Dictionary).

There are 52 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the twenty-second line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
face the opprobrium of one’s peers with delight in the fun of it all.
[...]

Here is that part-sentence, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 25 1999.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘When I say [quote] ‘that is knowledge and pathetic knowledge at that’ [endquote] it is not a conceptual answer given from a conceptual understanding ... I am talking from an on-going experiential actuality. That ‘insightful knowledge’ is predicated upon pathos ... and is experienced as such by anyone who goes past conceptualising and lives the reality of it.
• [Respondent]: ‘When a thought arises – ‘that is pathetic’ or ‘he does not see the forest for the trees’, etc is that not the operation of self in time, i.e. a comparing of images?
• [Richard]: ‘Maybe for you and maybe for others ... but not for me. It is a fact, and not an image, that suffering plays a large part in Christianity’s solution to the human condition. Meanwhile ... back to the topic: do you see that for all of your criticism of knowledge (as evidenced in your ‘Richard knowledge versus Konrad knowledge’ comment) you are spouting knowledge by the bucket load? And tried and failed knowledge at that?
• [Respondent]: ‘To think in terms of trying and failing or succeeding is to act from self-image.

• [Richard]: ‘One will never become free of the human condition whilst sitting in a deckchair on the patio waiting for ‘The Grace of God’ to descend. One needs to dare to do the unthinkable ... and then *face the opprobrium of one’s peers with delight in the fun of it all.* [emphasis added].
(Richard, List B, No.12f, 25 Sept 1999).

What arrant weirdity it is how ‘Sock Puppet Chaz’ could assert, in their accompanying condemnatory judgement, that those highlighted-for-convenience words are an example of an antisocial antagonistic correspondence chock full of disrespect, belittlement, unfriendliness, unkindness, arrogance, callous debunking, cynicism, sarcasm, provocation, feigned exasperation, downright unpleasantness, haughty indignation, phoney gratitude, exaggerated exclamations, denial, feigned resignation, fault finding, phoney politeness, ridicule, personal attack, browbeating and above all a total obsession with the word ‘YOU’.

There are 51 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the twenty-third line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
All you are doing is ...
[...]

Here is that part-sentence, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 25 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘To think in terms of trying and failing or succeeding is to act from self-image.
• [Richard]: ‘One will never become free of the human condition whilst sitting in a deckchair on the patio waiting for ‘The Grace of God’ to descend. One needs to dare to do the unthinkable ... and then face the opprobrium of one’s peers with delight in the fun of it all.
• [Respondent]: ‘Both me doing or god doing are images within the field of thought.
• [Richard]: ‘Maybe for you and maybe for others ... but not for me. It is a fact and not an image that the ‘I’ that was got off ‘his’ backside and sacrificed ‘himself’ in ‘his’ totality ... thus I am free to be here – unhindered by any ‘walk-in’ – now.
• [Respondent]: ‘Insight comes from outside the field of the known.
• [Richard]: ‘If I may re-phrase this? ‘Insight comes from the field of the not-yet known’.
• [Respondent]: ‘If one is doing or waiting for something, there is no space for something new, no insight.
• [Richard]: ‘Speaking personally, I have never gone for that ‘double-speak’ (double-think) ... if you look at your own sentence you are acknowledging that there is a necessity (if not a desire) for ‘something new’. *All you are doing is* debating the method (‘neither doing nor not-doing’ or ‘neither waiting nor not-waiting’). Once again, it sounds like neo-Buddhism to me’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.12f, 25 Sept 1999a).

It is categorically bizarre how ‘Sock Puppet Skye’ could assert, in their accompanying condemnatory judgement, that those highlighted-for-convenience words are a verbal brute bullying which is but unconstructive criticism – and they communicate with their dog better than that argumentative, accusing, pontificating, insulting, belittling, sarcastic, judgemental, condescending, snide, hammering repetitious bullying – insofar as it is not relating to one’s fellow human being without malice and sorrow at all but, rather, is perpetuating it monstrously (and that, whilst they used to think Richard had something important to share, they realise now they are no longer deluded and can thus learn nothing in dialogue with him except how to perpetuate repulsion because that is what his whole manner evokes) as his ‘belief’ in his harmlessness is just that, a ‘belief’, for it reflects in none of his words.

There are 50 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the twenty-fourth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
Would you care to re-think this statement?
[...]

Here is that question, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 25 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘The problem is not with knowledge but with identification with the known ...
• [Richard]: ‘Ahh ... good. I take it then that you are withdrawing your ‘Pay for View Special – $25.00; Richard knowledge vs. Konrad knowledge. Tonight at 9 P.M’. cynicism as being an unfounded and ill-thought out exercise that only appealed to the peanut gallery?
• [Respondent]: ‘Okay, make it $50.
• [Richard]: ‘You can have it for free as far as I am concerned ... anything of genuine value is priceless.
• [Respondent]: ‘... and the aggressiveness, pride and ambition that go with it.
• [Richard]: ‘Yet it is not ‘identification with’ (anything at all) that is the root cause of all the misery and mayhem ... it is identity itself. To merely cease ‘identifying with ...’ is to keep the identity intact (only a ‘detached identity’ now). Sounds like neo-Buddhism to me.
• [Respondent]: ‘To think that a former ‘self’ succeeded in ending itself so as to leave a selfless state is identification with the known.
• [Richard]: ‘What you are saying here is that if someone were to cease ‘becoming’ (so that there was ‘being’) then the moment that they open their mouth and inform others they are ‘identifying with the known’ . Do you realise that this wipes out everything spoken and written by the man you like to quote?
*Would you care to re-think this statement?*’ [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.12f, 25 Sept 1999a).

What utter grotesquerie it is how ‘Sock Puppet Skye’ could assert, in their accompanying condemnatory judgement, that those highlighted-for-convenience words are a verbal brute bullying which is but unconstructive criticism – and they communicate with their dog better than that argumentative, accusing, pontificating, insulting, belittling, sarcastic, judgemental, condescending, snide, hammering repetitious bullying – insofar as it is not relating to one’s fellow human being without malice and sorrow at all but, rather, is perpetuating it monstrously (and that, whilst they used to think Richard had something important to share, they realise now they are no longer deluded and can thus learn nothing in dialogue with him except how to perpetuate repulsion because that is what his whole manner evokes) as his ‘belief’ in his harmlessness is just that, a ‘belief’, for it reflects in none of his words.

There are 49 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the twenty-fifth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
Therefore this knowledge of yours is yet more erroneous knowledge.
[...]

That quote has been doctored: seven parenthesised words, between the word ‘yours’ and the word ‘is’, have been deleted and the parenthesises enclosing the word ‘erroneous’ have been removed.

Here is the actual sentence, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 25 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Krishnamurti’s disparagement is of knowledge as the self, not of knowledge per se. He very mentions that knowledge is essential to function in the world, to do a job, to go from one place to another. But knowledge as becoming is what he is objecting to.
• [Richard]: ‘Okay ... and why not apply this same astuteness to knowledge as ‘being’?
• [Respondent]: ‘Because knowledge as being doesn’t exist.
• [Richard]: ‘Does this knowledge of yours – [quote] ‘knowledge as being doesn’t exist’ [endquote] – not fall under the category of [quote] ‘knowledge as the self’ [endquote] and therefore worthy of ‘disparagement’ and/or being ‘objected to’?
(...)
• [Respondent]: ‘There is good reason for it. If ‘I’ were to become something else, then what roadmap do I follow?
• [Richard]: ‘Thus far in human history, all the subservient ‘I’s have followed the ancient road-map colloquially called the ‘Tried and True’, little realising that it is the ‘Tried and Failed’ ... even after it is pointed out again and again.
• [Respondent]: ‘That is besides the point. The fact is, there is no roadmap.
• [Richard]: ‘Given that there are trillions of words in the ancient scriptures then there are many, many roadmaps which, so some say, all lead to the same ‘goal’. *Therefore this knowledge of yours* (worthy of ‘disparagement’ and/or being ‘objected to’) *is yet more (erroneous) knowledge.* [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.33, 25 Sep 1999).

What type of personificator is it who would think they could get away with removing seven parenthesised words, deleting the parenthesises enclosing another word, and then present the resultant bastardisation as an example of nothing but the vain self protective attacks of an ignorant fool – inasmuch the nonsensical, valueless, nit-picking, personal attacks; the twisting of facts, one-upmanship and avoidance of clear and logical questions, makes it obvious the guy has a major communication problem (in that he is woefully incompetent, vain and arrogant and sorely lacking in basic communication skills) – and where the context and manner in which he uses the words ‘oh’ and ‘umm’ smacks of an immature and insolent attitude, such as to not waste precious time replying to his pretentious denials of what could not be more obviously the dirty work of nothing but a clown?

Here is a useful word:

• damfool (adj.): (a person who is) thoroughly foolish or stupid. ~ (Oxford English Dictionary).

There are 48 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the twenty-sixth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
Okay, if you wish to repeat the mistakes then so be it Just for starters ...
[...]

As that (unreferenced) quote makes no grammatical sense a closer inspection (the capitalised word ‘Just’ after the word ‘it’ for example) reveals that it is actually a stitched-together composite formed by extracting a sentence and a part-sentence from two different emails written on two different days – September 25 1999 and October 01 1999 – and then deleting eleven words out of the twenty three-word sentence (between the word ‘mistakes’ and the term ‘then so be it’).

Here is the actual sentence, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 25 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Knowledge as becoming leads to conflict, and knowledge as being is an oxymoron.
• [Richard]: ‘To say that something ‘is an oxymoron’ is, if not a disparagement, at least suggesting it is a worthless contradiction in terms.
• [Respondent]: ‘That doesn’t mean the I disparage knowledge. It is very factual. I observe it with the objectivity of a scientist.
• [Richard]: ‘Good. Can you apply this astuteness to ‘knowledge as being’?
• [Respondent]: ‘K’s objection to knowledge as a means to become more free, etc. is very logical, in my opinion.
• [Richard]: ‘Hmm ... and you found Mr. Albert Einstein’s objection to the common view of space (as delineated by a fruit-bowl for example) to be ‘very logical’ as well, did you not?
• [Respondent]: ‘Re-visiting the dead horse: yes. The logic there is – space is related to mass and it is not independent.
• [Richard]: ‘*Okay, if you wish to repeat the mistakes* of history by calling revisiting an unfinished dialogue a ‘dead horse’ *then so be it*’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.33, 25 Sep 1999).

And here is the part-sentence, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on October 01 1999.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘The ‘self’ is established via the genetically encoded instinctual passions that all sentient beings are born with ... commonly known as the ‘survival instinct’.
• [Respondent]: ‘I don’t think that the ‘self’ is established via instincts. All animals have instincts, but only the human has a self.
• [Richard]: ‘All sentient beings have some degree of awareness of ‘self’ and ‘other’. *Just for starters*, it has been demonstrated, via the ‘scientific method’ (predictably repeatable on demand and replicable by anyone anywhere with the requisite knowledge and expertise), that chimpanzees have a recognisable rudimentary ‘self’ (as in an awareness of ‘self’ and ‘other’). There is no reason to assume that when a dog lifts a leg on a tree that it is unaware of ‘self’ as in what humans call <dog> and ‘other’ as in what humans call <tree> (whilst it is entirely reasonable to assume that a tree is unaware of ‘self’ as in what humans call <tree> and ‘other’ as in what humans call <dog>)’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.33, 01 Oct 1999).

What rank bizarrerie it is how ‘Sock Puppet Skye’ could assert, in their accompanying condemnatory judgement, that those highlighted-for-convenience words are a verbal brute bullying which is but unconstructive criticism – and they communicate with their dog better than that argumentative, accusing, pontificating, insulting, belittling, sarcastic, judgemental, condescending, snide, hammering repetitious bullying – insofar as it is not relating to one’s fellow human being without malice and sorrow at all but, rather, is perpetuating it monstrously (and that, whilst they used to think Richard had something important to share, they realise now they are no longer deluded and can thus learn nothing in dialogue with him except how to perpetuate repulsion because that is what his whole manner evokes) as his ‘belief’ in his harmlessness is just that, a ‘belief’, for it reflects in none of his words.

There are 47 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the twenty-seventh line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
Are you really saying ...
[...]

Here is that part-sentence, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 25 1999.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘The ‘self’ is established via the genetically encoded instinctual passions that all sentient beings are born with ... commonly known as the ‘survival instinct’.

• [Respondent]: ‘I don’t think that the ‘self’ is established via instincts. All animals have instincts, but only the human has a self.

• [Richard]: ‘All sentient beings have some degree of awareness of ‘self’ and ‘other’. Just for starters, it has been demonstrated, via the ‘scientific method’ (predictably repeatable on demand and replicable by anyone anywhere with the requisite knowledge and expertise), that chimpanzees have a recognisable rudimentary ‘self’ (as in an awareness of ‘self’ and ‘other’). There is no reason to assume that when a dog lifts a leg on a tree that it is unaware of ‘self’ as in what humans call <dog> and ‘other’ as in what humans call <tree> (whilst it is entirely reasonable to assume that a tree is unaware of ‘self’ as in what humans call <tree> and ‘other’ as in what humans call <dog>)’.

• [Respondent]: ‘Let me clarify: the human self is created via thinking.

• [Richard]: ‘You are not clarifying ... you are merely restating your conclusion by implicitly denying the evidence that animals have a rudimentary self.

• [Respondent]: ‘When we act instinctively, there is no self.

• [Richard]: ‘*Are you really saying* that to act instinctively (with fear and aggression and nurture and desire for example) is to be selfless?

• [Respondent]: ‘Isn’t ‘self’ really (and literally) an after-thought?’ [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.33, 25 Sep 1999).

What out-and-out weirdity it is how ‘Sock Puppet Ron’ could assert, in their accompanying condemnatory judgement (and follow-up emails), that those highlighted-for-convenience words are an example of nothing but the vain self protective attacks of an ignorant fool – inasmuch the nonsensical, valueless, nit-picking, personal attacks; the twisting of facts, one-upmanship and avoidance of clear and logical questions, makes it obvious the guy has a major communication problem (in that he is woefully incompetent, vain and arrogant and sorely lacking in basic communication skills) – and where the context and manner in which he uses the words ‘oh’ and ‘umm’ smacks of an immature and insolent attitude, such as to not waste precious time replying to his pretentious denials of what could not be more obviously the dirty work of nothing but a clown.

There are 46 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the twenty-eighth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
There is no reason to assume ...
[...]

Here is that part-sentence, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 25 1999.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘The ‘self’ is established via the genetically encoded instinctual passions that all sentient beings are born with ... commonly known as the ‘survival instinct’.
• [Respondent]: ‘I don’t think that the ‘self’ is established via instincts. All animals have instincts, but only the human has a self.
• [Richard]: ‘All sentient beings have some degree of awareness of ‘self’ and ‘other’. Just for starters, it has been demonstrated, via the ‘scientific method’ (predictably repeatable on demand and replicable by anyone anywhere with the requisite knowledge and expertise), that chimpanzees have a recognisable rudimentary ‘self’ (as in an awareness of ‘self’ and ‘other’). *There is no reason to assume* that when a dog lifts a leg on a tree that it is unaware of ‘self’ as in what humans call <dog> and ‘other’ as in what humans call <tree> (whilst it is entirely reasonable to assume that a tree is unaware of ‘self’ as in what humans call <tree> and ‘other’ as in what humans call <dog>)’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.33, 25 Sep 1999).

It is unqualifiedly bizarre how ‘Sock Puppet Skye’ could assert, in their accompanying condemnatory judgement, that those highlighted-for-convenience words are a verbal brute bullying which is but unconstructive criticism – and they communicate with their dog better than that argumentative, accusing, pontificating, insulting, belittling, sarcastic, judgemental, condescending, snide, hammering repetitious bullying – insofar as it is not relating to one’s fellow human being without malice and sorrow at all but, rather, is perpetuating it monstrously (and that, whilst they used to think Richard had something important to share, they realise now they are no longer deluded and can thus learn nothing in dialogue with him except how to perpetuate repulsion because that is what his whole manner evokes) as his ‘belief’ in his harmlessness is just that, a ‘belief’, for it reflects in none of his words.

There are 45 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the twenty-ninth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
which is hardly the stuff ...
[...]

Here is that part-sentence, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on October 01 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘For example, an instinctive response to avert a danger, and then after-thought: ‘I could have died’.
• [Richard]: ‘Yet, on the whole, that is rarely a dispassionate ‘after-thought’ is it not? Mr. Joseph LeDoux has demonstrated that the amygdala non-cognitively generates instinctual fear (a passion) 14 milliseconds before any sensory information gets to the cerebral cortex. This fear response simultaneously releases adrenaline, which floods the body and the cerebral cortex, before thinking begins. Thus the thoughts are fear-filled thoughts ... *which is hardly the stuff* of a dispassionate ‘after-thought’ created ‘self’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.33, 01 Oct 1999).

What outright grotesquerie it is how ‘Sock Puppet Chaz’ could assert, in their accompanying condemnatory judgement, that those highlighted-for-convenience words are an example of an antisocial antagonistic correspondence chock full of disrespect, belittlement, unfriendliness, unkindness, arrogance, callous debunking, cynicism, sarcasm, provocation, feigned exasperation, downright unpleasantness, haughty indignation, phoney gratitude, exaggerated exclamations, denial, feigned resignation, fault finding, phoney politeness, ridicule, personal attack, browbeating and above all a total obsession with the word ‘YOU’.

There are 44 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the thirtieth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
You are very quick to re-state your ...
[...]

Here is that part-sentence, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on October 01 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘For example, an instinctive response to avert a danger, and then after-thought: ‘I could have died’.
• [Richard]: ‘Yet, on the whole, that is rarely a dispassionate ‘after-thought’ is it not? Mr. Joseph LeDoux has demonstrated that the amygdala non-cognitively generates instinctual fear (a passion) 14 milliseconds before any sensory information gets to the cerebral cortex. This fear response simultaneously releases adrenaline, which floods the body and the cerebral cortex, before thinking begins. Thus the thoughts are fear-filled thoughts ... which is hardly the stuff of a dispassionate ‘after-thought’ created ‘self’.
• [Respondent]: ‘True. In those 14 milliseconds there is no self either.
• [Richard]: ‘*You are very quick to re-state your* conclusion here ... are you of the ‘Tabula Rasa’ school of philosophy?’ [emphasis added].
(Richard, List B, No.33, 25 Sep 1999).

Oddly enough, because it is such a petty thing, when the second version of ‘Sock Puppet Skye’s long list of [quote] ‘a HUGE assortment of epithets that made mine look piss-weak’ [endquote] was posted on The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list by ‘Sock Puppet Charlie’ (aka ‘Chaz’) on June 27, 2001 the word ‘your’ had been deleted. Viz.:

From: Charlie Bragg
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 9:34 PM
To: actualfreedom@listbot.com
Subject: Disrespect
Richard wrote:
[...]
You are very quick to re-state...
[...]

And when the third version of ‘Sock Puppet Skye’s long list of [quote] ‘a HUGE assortment of epithets that made mine look piss-weak’ [endquote] was posted on October 24, 2004 – by their alter ego ‘Sock Puppet Xan’ (aka ‘Ron’ or ‘Ron X’) – it too had the word ‘your’ deleted. Viz.:

From: xan xuereb
Date: Sun Oct 24 2004 - 04:34:47 AEST
To: actualfreedom@topica.com
Subject: Strange blindness
Richard wrote:
[...]
You are very quick to re-state...
[...]

What unmitigated bizarrerie it is how ‘Sock Puppet Ron’ could assert, in their accompanying condemnatory judgement (and follow-up emails), that those highlighted-for-convenience words are an example of nothing but the vain self protective attacks of an ignorant fool – inasmuch the nonsensical, valueless, nit-picking, personal attacks; the twisting of facts, one-upmanship and avoidance of clear and logical questions, makes it obvious the guy has a major communication problem (in that he is woefully incompetent, vain and arrogant and sorely lacking in basic communication skills) – and where the context and manner in which he uses the words ‘oh’ and ‘umm’ smacks of an immature and insolent attitude, such as to not waste precious time replying to his pretentious denials of what could not be more obviously the dirty work of nothing but a clown.

There are 43 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the thirty-first line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
Am I to understand So that peoples with some remnants of commonsense left ...
[...]

As that (unreferenced) quote makes no grammatical sense a closer inspection (the capitalised word ‘So’ after the word ‘understand’ for example) reveals that it is actually a stitched-together composite formed by extracting two different part-sentences from two different emails written to two different people on two different days – Respondent No. 33 (October 01 1999) and Respondent No. 36 (September 25 1999) – and then, strangely enough, capitalising the word ‘so’.

Here is the first part-sentence, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on October 01 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Knowledge as being doesn’t exist.
• [Richard]: ‘Does this knowledge of yours – [quote] ‘knowledge as being doesn’t exist’ [endquote] – not fall under the category of [quote] ‘knowledge as the self’ [endquote] and therefore worthy of [quote] ‘disparagement’ and/or being ‘objected to’ [endquote]?
• [Respondent]: ‘No. This is not knowledge. It is a simple fact that being is outside the purview of knowledge.
• [Richard]: ‘*Am I to understand* that when I report that knowledge as ‘being’ does exist as an easily observable fact – and verified from personal experience – it is to be disparagingly called ‘knowledge’ and is ‘objected to’ (especially on this Mailing List) ... but that when you read in a dead man’s book that [quote] ‘knowledge as being doesn’t exist’ [endquote] this psittacism then miraculously becomes [quote] ‘a simple fact’ [endquote] for you?’ [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.33, 01 Oct 1999).

And here is the second part-sentence (with its original lower-case ‘so’ intact), embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 25 1999.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘The ‘psychiatric assessment’ was for the official record (I find it cute that an actual freedom from the human condition is classified as a severe psychotic disorder) and I wanted that fact on record.
• [Respondent]: ‘Why did you want the fact on record?
• [Richard]: ‘Amongst other reasons: *so that peoples with some remnants of commonsense left* would be able to see the absurdity of the whole mental health profession ... to a certain extent the psychiatric/psychological profession has become as powerful as the fundamentalist clergy of yore’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.36, 25 Sep 1999).

What class of personifier is it who would stitch-together a composite formed by extracting two different part-sentences from two different emails written to two different people on two different days, but then unnecessarily capitalise the fifth word, before presenting the resultant bastardisation as evidence that proves a verbal brute bullying which is but unconstructive criticism – and that they communicate with their dog better than that argumentative, accusing, pontificating, insulting, belittling, sarcastic, judgemental, condescending, snide, hammering repetitious bullying – insofar as it is not relating to one’s fellow human being without malice and sorrow at all but, rather, is perpetuating it monstrously (and that, whilst they used to think Richard had something important to share, they realise now they are no longer deluded and can thus learn nothing in dialogue with him except how to perpetuate repulsion because that is what his whole manner evokes) as his ‘belief’ in his harmlessness is just that, a ‘belief’, for it reflects in none of his words?

Here is a useful word:

• fatuous (adj.): of a person, personal action, feeling, etc.: vacantly silly, purposeless, idiotic. ~ (Oxford English Dictionary).

There are 42 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the thirty-second line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
Why would I try to prove otherwise?
[...]

Here is that question, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 25 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Just what does your [psychiatric] examination accomplish?
• [Richard]: ‘It demonstrates that psychiatry and psychology do not have the answer to the problem of the human condition. And worse ... it actively works against anybody becoming free of the human condition with its attitude of helping to bring the ‘sick’ client back to a state of as near-normal functioning as possible.
• [Respondent]: ‘It demonstrates that you have mental disorders, can you prove otherwise?
• [Richard]: ‘*Why would I try to prove otherwise?* I do have a mental disorder ... and a severe psychotic disorder at that’. [emphasis added].
(Richard, List B, No.36, 25 Sep 1999).

What stark weirdity it is how ‘Sock Puppet Chaz’ could assert, in their accompanying condemnatory judgement, that those highlighted-for-convenience words are an example of an antisocial antagonistic correspondence chock full of disrespect, belittlement, unfriendliness, unkindness, arrogance, callous debunking, cynicism, sarcasm, provocation, feigned exasperation, downright unpleasantness, haughty indignation, phoney gratitude, exaggerated exclamations, denial, feigned resignation, fault finding, phoney politeness, ridicule, personal attack, browbeating and above all a total obsession with the word ‘YOU’.’

There are 41 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the thirty-third line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
If they were so foolish ...
[...]

Here is that part-quote, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 25 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘It demonstrates that you have mental disorders, can you prove otherwise?
• [Richard]: ‘Why would I try to prove otherwise? I do have a mental disorder ... and a severe psychotic disorder at that.
• [Respondent]: ‘Did you have a series of examinations taken before and after your ego-death, to demonstrate that a change had occurred?
• [Richard]: ‘Yes ... I was psychologically assessed as being normal (‘a well adjusted personality’) by acknowledged experts in the field well prior to 1981 as well as these ‘after the event’ assessments we are discussing here.
• [Respondent]: ‘Is it possible that it was done as a form of proof that you could offer to non-believers of your egoless state?
• [Richard]: ‘I do not want any one to merely believe me. I stress to people how vital it is that they see for themselves the root cause of the humans condition. *If they were so foolish* as to believe me then the most they would end up in is living in a dream state and thus miss out on the actual. I do not wish this fate upon anyone ... I like my fellow human beings. Of course, if they believe my words to be false they close the door on their own freedom from the human condition’ [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.36, 25 Sep 1999).

It is downright bizarre how ‘Sock Puppet Skye’ could assert, in their accompanying condemnatory judgement, that those highlighted-for-convenience words are a verbal brute bullying which is but unconstructive criticism – and they communicate with their dog better than that argumentative, accusing, pontificating, insulting, belittling, sarcastic, judgemental, condescending, snide, hammering repetitious bullying – insofar as it is not relating to one’s fellow human being without malice and sorrow at all but, rather, is perpetuating it monstrously (and that, whilst they used to think Richard had something important to share, they realise now they are no longer deluded and can thus learn nothing in dialogue with him except how to perpetuate repulsion because that is what his whole manner evokes) as his ‘belief’ in his harmlessness is just that, a ‘belief’, for it reflects in none of his words.

There are 40 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the thirty-fourth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
Now I ask you!
[...]

That quote has been doctored – the added exclamation mark takes the place of a colon in the original – and it is only the first half of a twelve-word question anyway.

Here is the actual part-question, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 25 1999.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘The ‘psychiatric assessment’ was for the official record (I find it cute that an actual freedom from the human condition is classified as a severe psychotic disorder) and I wanted that fact on record.
• [Respondent]: ‘Why did you want the fact on record?
• [Richard]: ‘Amongst other reasons: so that peoples with some remnants of commonsense left would be able to see the absurdity of the whole mental health profession ... to a certain extent the psychiatric/psychological profession has become as powerful as the fundamentalist clergy of yore. To put it simply, a person who is said to be ‘egotistical’ is considered to be ... well ... not a nice person, and power-hungry egotist (megalomaniacs) who become dictators can plunge whole nations into bloody war. Ergo: eliminate the ego and the entire problem is dissolved. However, such a person is officially classified as ‘depersonalised’ and is diagnosed psychotic. *Now I ask you*: is it not the dictator who is psychotic?
I could go on through the other symptoms but I said I would put it simply ... I am only too happy to elaborate’. [emphasis added].
(Richard, List B, No.36, 25 Sep 1999).

What sort of personage is it who would copy-paste three words from a twelve-word question, replace the question mark with an exclamation mark, and then present the resultant bastardisation as an example of nothing but the vain self protective attacks of an ignorant fool – inasmuch the nonsensical, valueless, nit-picking, personal attacks; the twisting of facts, one-upmanship and avoidance of clear and logical questions, makes it obvious the guy has a major communication problem (in that he is woefully incompetent, vain and arrogant and sorely lacking in basic communication skills) – and where the context and manner in which he uses the words ‘oh’ and ‘umm’ smacks of an immature and insolent attitude, such as to not waste precious time replying to his pretentious denials of what could not be more obviously the dirty work of nothing but a clown?

Here is a useful word:

• cheater (n.): a person who cheats (habitually); a swindler, a deceiver. ~ (Oxford English Dictionary).

There are 39 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the thirty-fifth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
what you are going to come up with next in your on-going objection!
[...]

That quote has been doctored – there is no exclamation mark in the original – and it is only the middle thirteen words of a twenty four-word sentence anyway.

Here is the actual part-quote, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 25 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘It does not seem to matter whether you put quotes around the ‘I’ or not you are describing an action that was undertaken by the person called Richard.
• [Richard]: ‘It does not seem to matter what I say or how I say it ... you are going to find a way to object to it. However, I am only too happy to re-phrase the paragraph in a way that even you should not be able to find fault with. Viz.:

[Richard]: ‘No psychiatric or psychological treatment would meet what ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul was wanting – ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul was looking to go beyond both normal and abnormal – thus this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware was not seeking to ‘undergo treatment’ but rather to find out, experientially (as this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware did in other fields) what was the extent and range of other human’s experience and solutions’.

I do so look forward to *what you are going to come up with next in your on-going objection* to being happy and harmless’. [emphasis added].
(Richard, List B, No.36, 25 Sep 1999).

Curiously enough, the second version of ‘Sock Puppet Skye’s long list of [quote] ‘a HUGE assortment of epithets that made mine look piss-weak’ [endquote], which they craftily state [quote] ‘appeared on the AF list a few years later’ [endquote] – whereas it was, in fact, actually posted by ‘Sock Puppet Charlie’ (aka ‘Chaz’) on June 27, 2001 – has the word ‘what’ capitalised and the hyphen removed from the word ‘on-going’. Viz.:

From: Charlie Bragg
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 9:34 PM
To: actualfreedom@listbot.com
Subject: Disrespect
Richard wrote:
[...]
What you are going to come up with next in your on going objection!
[...]

It is a most peculiar thing to do – given that it effectively makes it appear to be a whole sentence – because as an exclamatory sentence it makes no grammatical sense.

Yet when the third version of ‘Sock Puppet Skye’s long list of [quote] ‘a HUGE assortment of epithets that made mine look piss-weak’ [endquote] was posted on October 24, 2004 – by their alter ego ‘Sock Puppet Xan’ (aka ‘Ron’ or ‘Ron X’) – it too had the word ‘what’ capitalised and the hyphen removed from the word ‘on-going’. Viz.:

From: xan xuereb
Date: Sun Oct 24 2004 - 04:34:47 AEST
To: actualfreedom@topica.com
Subject: Strange blindness
Richard wrote:
[...]
What you are going to come up with next in your on going objection!
[...]

Apart from the obvious doctoring (inserting an exclamation mark where there was none) it is the pointless doctoring in the second and third version – especially the rather odd removal of a hyphen – which indicates, perhaps, something somewhat out-of-kilter about such a person’s state of mind.

There are 38 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the thirty-sixth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
... and then I get told that I am arrogant!
[...]

That doctored quote has already appeared further above (in Quote No. 20) where it was tacked on to another sentence – the sentence in which the ten parenthesised words [quote] ‘offering me the word ‘coffee’ instead of the actual substance’ [endquote] had been deleted – with an extra first person pronoun inserted, two parenthesised words deleted, and the exclamation mark appended in their place.

So, once again, here is the actual part-sentence (with neither that extra first person pronoun nor the exclamation mark), embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 29 1999.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘Are you saying that the possibility of peace-on-earth is so remote that one should give up before even trying? Thus all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides will go on for ever and a day.
• [Respondent]: ‘No, not saying that. I am saying that all the human effort thus far does not seem to have fixed the problem and the problem seems to be complex indeed.
• [Richard]: ‘Okay ... ‘all the human effort thus far does not seem to have fixed the problem’ are the key-words. I have discovered something entirely new in human history ... and mostly, when I report my experience to my fellow human beings, people wish to retry ‘all the human effort’ which, as you so rightly say ‘thus far does not seem to have fixed the problem’. For clarity I call it the ‘Tried and Failed’ ... *and then get told that I am arrogant* (or whatever)’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.38, 29 Sep 1999).

What ilk of personality is it who would needlessly insert an extra first person pronoun, append an exclamation mark, then present the resultant bastardisation as evidence that proves a verbal brute bullying which is but unconstructive criticism – and that they communicate with their dog better than that argumentative, accusing, pontificating, insulting, belittling, sarcastic, judgemental, condescending, snide, hammering repetitious bullying – insofar as it is not relating to one’s fellow human being without malice and sorrow at all but, rather, is perpetuating it monstrously (and that, whilst they used to think Richard had something important to share, they realise now they are no longer deluded and can thus learn nothing in dialogue with him except how to perpetuate repulsion because that is what his whole manner evokes) as his ‘belief’ in his harmlessness is just that, a ‘belief’, for it reflects in none of his words?

Here is a useful word:

• tomfool (n.): a (very) foolish or silly person. ~ (Oxford English Dictionary).

There are 37 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the thirty-seventh line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
this psittacism then miraculously becomes ‘a simple fact’ for you?
[...]

Here is that part-quote, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on October 01 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent No. 12]: ‘Pay for View Special – $25.00; Richard knowledge vs. Konrad knowledge. Tonight at 9 P.M.
• [Richard]: ‘Whosoever scorns the lessons of history, with a mimicked disdain for knowledge, commit themselves to doggedly re-making the blunders of their illustrious predecessors.
• [Respondent]: ‘If by the illustrious predecessor you mean K, then, I would like to make the following point that I made to Konrad: Krishnamurti’s disparagement is of knowledge as the self, not of knowledge per se. He very mentions that knowledge is essential to function in the world, to do a job, to go from one place to another. But knowledge as becoming is what he is objecting to.
(...)
• [Respondent]: ‘Knowledge as being doesn’t exist.
• [Richard]: ‘Does this knowledge of yours – [quote] ‘knowledge as being doesn’t exist’ [endquote] – not fall under the category of [quote] ‘knowledge as the self’ [endquote] and therefore worthy of [quote] ‘disparagement’ and/or being ‘objected to’ [endquote]?
• [Respondent]: ‘No. This is not knowledge. It is a simple fact that being is outside the purview of knowledge.
• [Richard]: ‘Am I to understand that when I report that knowledge as ‘being’ does exist as an easily observable fact – and verified from personal experience – it is to be disparagingly called ‘knowledge’ and is ‘objected to’ (especially on this Mailing List) ... but that when you read in a dead man’s book that [quote] ‘knowledge as being doesn’t exist’ [endquote] *this psittacism then miraculously becomes ‘a simple fact’ for you?*’ [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.33, 01 Oct 1999).

What rank grotesquerie it is how ‘Sock Puppet Ron’ could assert, in their accompanying condemnatory judgement (and follow-up emails), that those highlighted-for-convenience words are an example of nothing but the vain self protective attacks of an ignorant fool – inasmuch the nonsensical, valueless, nit-picking, personal attacks; the twisting of facts, one-upmanship and avoidance of clear and logical questions, makes it obvious the guy has a major communication problem (in that he is woefully incompetent, vain and arrogant and sorely lacking in basic communication skills) – and where the context and manner in which he uses the words ‘oh’ and ‘umm’ smacks of an immature and insolent attitude, such as to not waste precious time replying to his pretentious denials of what could not be more obviously the dirty work of nothing but a clown.

There are 36 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the thirty-eighth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
If you will not converse If you will not engage then what do you expect of the other?
[...]

As that (unreferenced) quote makes no grammatical sense a closer inspection (the capitalisation of the word ‘If’, after the word ‘converse’, for instance) reveals that it is actually a stitched-together composite formed by extracting three part-sentences from a paragraph in an email written to Respondent No. 05 (September 30 1999) and reversing their sequential order.

Here is the first part-sentence, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 30 1999.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘Oh well ... c’est la vie, I guess.
• [Respondent]: ‘Guess to your heart’s content!
• [Richard]: ‘If you will not engage in discussion, on a topic that you introduced, then I have no other choice but to guess. *If you will not converse* in a reasoned and sensible way, then what do you expect of the other? Mind reading? [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.5a, 30 Sep 1999).

And here is the second part-sentence, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 30 1999.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘Oh well ... c’est la vie, I guess.
• [Respondent]: ‘Guess to your heart’s content!
• [Richard]: ‘*If you will not engage* in discussion, on a topic that you introduced, then I have no other choice but to guess. If you will not converse in a reasoned and sensible way, then what do you expect of the other? Mind reading? [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.5a, 30 Sep 1999).

And, lastly, here is the third part-sentence, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 30 1999.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘Oh well ... c’est la vie, I guess.
• [Respondent]: ‘Guess to your heart’s content!
• [Richard]: ‘If you will not engage in discussion, on a topic that you introduced, then I have no other choice but to guess. If you will not converse in a reasoned and sensible way, *then what do you expect of the other?* Mind reading? [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.5a, 30 Sep 1999).

What inimitable bizarrerie it is how ‘Sock Puppet Skye’ could assert, in their accompanying condemnatory judgement, that those highlighted-for-convenience words are a verbal brute bullying which is but unconstructive criticism – and they communicate with their dog better than that argumentative, accusing, pontificating, insulting, belittling, sarcastic, judgemental, condescending, snide, hammering repetitious bullying – insofar as it is not relating to one’s fellow human being without malice and sorrow at all but, rather, is perpetuating it monstrously (and that, whilst they used to think Richard had something important to share, they realise now they are no longer deluded and can thus learn nothing in dialogue with him except how to perpetuate repulsion because that is what his whole manner evokes) as his ‘belief’ in his harmlessness is just that, a ‘belief’, for it reflects in none of his words.

There are 35 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the thirty-ninth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
under this twisted rationale Your peculiar reasoning ...
[...]

As that (unreferenced) quote makes no grammatical sense a closer inspection (the capitalisation of the word ‘Your’, after the word ‘rationale’, for instance) reveals that it is actually a stitched-together composite formed by stitching together two part-sentences from a paragraph in an email written to Respondent No. 36 (September 25 1999).

Here is the first part-sentence, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 25 1999.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘... thus far in human history one has had only two choices: being human (normal) or being divine (abnormal). Now there is a third alternative ... and it outstrips any altered state of consciousness.
• [Respondent]: ‘Your words imply that no one before you has accomplished what you have done.
• [Richard]: ‘No one else, as far as I have been able to ascertain in eighteen years of scouring the books and travelling overseas, has accomplished what I have done. The only person who comes close is Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti whom I found out about last year when I first came onto the Internet. But he does not know what happened to him and has no solutions to offer. He is simply a curiosity to those who go to see him. He states that he is a ‘never to be repeated sport of nature’. Whereas I know where I came from and where I am at and how I got here.
• [Respondent]: ‘That is highly arrogant in my opinion.
• [Richard]: ‘Am I to wait until everybody else is happy and harmless before I am? If I was to wait, I would be waiting forever ... for *under this twisted rationale*, no one would dare to be the first to be happy and harmless because No. 36 would be waiting in the wings to pounce on them with his ‘that is highly arrogant’ wisdom. Your peculiar reasoning allows only for a mass happiness and harmlessness to occur globally; overnight success, as it were. Someone has to be intrepid enough to be first, to show what is possible to a benighted humanity.
One has to face the opprobrium of one’s ill-informed peers’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.36, 25 Sep 1999).

And here is the second part-sentence, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 25 1999.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘Am I to wait until everybody else is happy and harmless before I am? If I was to wait, I would be waiting forever ... for under this twisted rationale, no one would dare to be the first to be happy and harmless because No. 36 would be waiting in the wings to pounce on them with his ‘that is highly arrogant’ wisdom. *Your peculiar reasoning* allows only for a mass happiness and harmlessness to occur globally; overnight success, as it were. Someone has to be intrepid enough to be first, to show what is possible to a benighted humanity.
One has to face the opprobrium of one’s ill-informed peers’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.36, 25 Sep 1999).

What arrant weirdity it is how ‘Sock Puppet Skye’ could assert, in their accompanying condemnatory judgement, that those highlighted-for-convenience words are a verbal brute bullying which is but unconstructive criticism – and they communicate with their dog better than that argumentative, accusing, pontificating, insulting, belittling, sarcastic, judgemental, condescending, snide, hammering repetitious bullying – insofar as it is not relating to one’s fellow human being without malice and sorrow at all but, rather, is perpetuating it monstrously (and that, whilst they used to think Richard had something important to share, they realise now they are no longer deluded and can thus learn nothing in dialogue with him except how to perpetuate repulsion because that is what his whole manner evokes) as his ‘belief’ in his harmlessness is just that, a ‘belief’, for it reflects in none of his words.

There are 34 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the fortieth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
You do not seem to ‘get it’ do you?
[...]

Here is that question, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 30 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Since Richard’s latest face saving attempt is so weak as to not warrant refutation, it will get none from here.
• [Richard]: ‘Quite frankly, I did not expect you to throw in the towel so quickly ... and over such a simple issue, too.
• [Respondent]: ‘On the other hand, this attempt to draw me into wasting more time on the exchange was entirely predictable.
• [Richard]: ‘Am I to understand that you think that an investigation into the character, quality, nature or disposition of compassion (touted as a vital component of the spiritual cure-all for all the ills of humankind) is a waste of time? Why?
(...)
• [Respondent]: ‘One is reminded of nothing so much as ‘The Black Knight’ from ‘Monty Python and The Holy Grail’, limblessly challenging his perceived opponent while obviously unable to mount even a semblance of a pursuit.
• [Richard]: ‘Hmm ... methinks thou doest protest too much. What was that you were saying (above) about ‘saving face’?
• [Respondent]: ‘See ‘declaring victory’, above.
• [Richard]: ‘*You do not seem to ‘get it’ do you?* This is a Mailing List purportedly set up to investigate the appalling mess that is the human condition ... and when someone presents an opportunity for you to explore (or at least re-examine your assumptions) you not only throw in the towel but seek to convince the other that it is they who are lacking the fortitude to continue and not you.
You are standing on very shaky ground’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.5a, 30 Sep 1999).

It is categorically bizarre how ‘Sock Puppet Ron’ could assert, in their accompanying condemnatory judgement (and follow-up emails), that those highlighted-for-convenience words are an example of nothing but the vain self protective attacks of an ignorant fool – inasmuch the nonsensical, valueless, nit-picking, personal attacks; the twisting of facts, one-upmanship and avoidance of clear and logical questions, makes it obvious the guy has a major communication problem (in that he is woefully incompetent, vain and arrogant and sorely lacking in basic communication skills) – and where the context and manner in which he uses the words ‘oh’ and ‘umm’ smacks of an immature and insolent attitude, such as to not waste precious time replying to his pretentious denials of what could not be more obviously the dirty work of nothing but a clown.

There are 33 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the forty-first line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
Indeed not!
[...]

That quote has been doctored – there is no exclamation mark in the original – and it is only the first two words of a twenty-word sentence anyway.

Here is that part-sentence, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 25 1999.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘... thus far in human history one has had only two choices: being human (normal) or being divine (abnormal). Now there is a third alternative ... and it outstrips any altered state of consciousness.
• [Respondent]: ‘Your words imply that no one before you has accomplished what you have done.
• [Richard]: ‘No one else, as far as I have been able to ascertain in eighteen years of scouring the books and travelling overseas, has accomplished what I have done. The only person who comes close is Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti whom I found out about last year when I first came onto the Internet. But he does not know what happened to him and has no solutions to offer. He is simply a curiosity to those who go to see him. He states that he is a ‘never to be repeated sport of nature’. Whereas I know where I came from and where I am at and how I got here.
• [Respondent]: ‘That is highly arrogant in my opinion.
• [Richard]: ‘Am I to wait until everybody else is happy and harmless before I am? If I was to wait, I would be waiting forever ... for under this twisted rationale, no one would dare to be the first to be happy and harmless because No. 36 would be waiting in the wings to pounce on them with his ‘that is highly arrogant’ wisdom. Your peculiar reasoning allows only for a mass happiness and harmlessness to occur globally; overnight success, as it were. Someone has to be intrepid enough to be first, to show what is possible to a benighted humanity. One has to face the opprobrium of one’s ill-informed peers.
• [Respondent]: ‘How do you know what you said is true?
• [Richard]: ‘Because I personally verify everything I say about my on-going condition.
• [Respondent]: ‘Beyond, before, etc have no meaning, do they, without the ego frame-of-reference?
• [Richard]: ‘*Indeed not* ... but I write for peoples with an ‘ego frame-of-reference’ (and I do have a fully functioning memory)’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.36, 25 Sep 1999).

What manner of a personator is it who would copy-paste the first two words of a twenty-word sentence, replace the period with exclamation mark, and then present the resultant bastardisation as an example of an antisocial antagonistic correspondence chock full of disrespect, belittlement, unfriendliness, unkindness, arrogance, callous debunking, cynicism, sarcasm, provocation, feigned exasperation, downright unpleasantness, haughty indignation, phoney gratitude, exaggerated exclamations, denial, feigned resignation, fault finding, phoney politeness, ridicule, personal attack, browbeating and above all a total obsession with the word ‘YOU’?

Here is a useful word:

• swindler (n.): a person who practises fraud or deceit for purposes of gain; a cheat. ~ (Oxford English Dictionary).

There are 32 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the forty-second line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
I have not!
[...]

That quote has been doctored – there is no exclamation mark in the original – and it is only the first three words of a twenty nine-word sentence anyway.

Here is that part-sentence, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 25 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘How do you know what you said is true?
• [Richard]: ‘Because I personally verify everything I say about my on-going condition.
• [Respondent]: ‘Beyond, before, etc have no meaning, do they, without the ego frame-of-reference?
• [Richard]: ‘Indeed not ... but I write for peoples with an ‘ego frame-of-reference’ (and I do have a fully functioning memory)
• [Respondent]: ‘You have side-stepped my question.
• [Richard]: ‘*I have not* ... ‘beyond’ and ‘before’ have no meaning to me because all that I write about the ego and soul (self and Self) have no actuality whatsoever. Their reality lives only in other people’s psyches’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.36, 25 Sep 1999).

What kind of personeity is it who would the first three words of a twenty nine-word sentence, replace the period with an exclamation mark, and then present the resultant bastardisation as an example of nothing but the vain self protective attacks of an ignorant fool – inasmuch the nonsensical, valueless, nit-picking, personal attacks; the twisting of facts, one-upmanship and avoidance of clear and logical questions, makes it obvious the guy has a major communication problem (in that he is woefully incompetent, vain and arrogant and sorely lacking in basic communication skills) – and where the context and manner in which he uses the words ‘oh’ and ‘umm’ smacks of an immature and insolent attitude, such as to not waste precious time replying to his pretentious denials of what could not be more obviously the dirty work of nothing but a clown?

Here is a useful word:

• deceiver (n.): a person who or thing which deceives or cheats; a cheat, an impostor. ~ (Oxford English Dictionary).

There are 31 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the forty-third line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
you attempt to browbeat the other Okay, what word or words would you use!
[...]

As that (unreferenced) quote makes no grammatical sense a closer inspection (the capitalisation of the word ‘Okay’, after the word ‘other’, for instance) reveals that it is actually a stitched-together composite formed by extracting two part-sentences from an email written to Respondent No. 05 (September 30 1999), deleting seventeen words between the word ‘Okay’ and the words ‘what word or words would you use’, substituting a comma in place of the ellipse, and adding the exclamation mark.

Here is the first part-sentence, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 30 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘What a waste of a first-rate vocabulary.
• [Richard]: ‘No ... nothing is wasted. From this day forward you will never again be able think of compassion without also thinking ‘pathos in common’ ... for I do have my ways and means of getting a fact established.
• [Respondent]: ‘There was no dispute on the etymological fact, only on its relevance.
• [Richard]: ‘Yet you will not investigate further ... you are so thoroughly convinced that your declaration is ‘set in concrete correct’ that *you attempt to browbeat the other* into complying with your conclusion with pathetic attempts at ridicule – attempts like [quote] ‘one is reminded of nothing so much as ‘The Black Knight’ from ‘Monty Python and The Holy Grail’, limblessly challenging his perceived opponent while obviously unable to mount even a semblance of a pursuit’ [endquote] – as if god almighty has spoken.
In fact, your entire demeanour in this exchange, so far, reeks of your ‘intrinsic morality’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.5a, 30 Sep 1999).

And here is the second part-sentence, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 30 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘To rely on etymological analysis in a multi-cultural forum is thus as likely mislead as to clarify, leading to an ilk of precision that amounts to a stilted linguistic fundamentalism.
• [Richard]: ‘*Okay* ... given that what I was saying above was that ‘suffering together’ is not a sign of health, *what word or words would you use* to convey a dispassionate consideration and care for one’s fellow human being if one is not to understand the affective roots of the commonly used words for such sensible concern ... such as ‘pity’, ‘sympathy’, ‘commiseration’, ‘solicitous’, ‘empathy’ and ‘compassionate’?
• [Respondent]: ‘At their worst, such exercises are nothing more or other than the professor attempting to impress and intimidate the denizens of English 101. Pedantically.
• [Richard]: ‘Indeed, but at its best, such matter-of-fact practicalness is eminently worthwhile – it promotes clarity in thinking and communicating – and I am never interested in settling for second-best’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.5a, 30 Sep 1999).

What utter grotesquerie it is how ‘Sock Puppet Skye’ could assert, in their accompanying condemnatory judgement, that those highlighted-for-convenience words are a verbal brute bullying which is but unconstructive criticism – and they communicate with their dog better than that argumentative, accusing, pontificating, insulting, belittling, sarcastic, judgemental, condescending, snide, hammering repetitious bullying – insofar as it is not relating to one’s fellow human being without malice and sorrow at all but, rather, is perpetuating it monstrously (and that, whilst they used to think Richard had something important to share, they realise now they are no longer deluded and can thus learn nothing in dialogue with him except how to perpetuate repulsion because that is what his whole manner evokes) as his ‘belief’ in his harmlessness is just that, a ‘belief’, for it reflects in none of his words.

There are 30 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the forty-fourth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
pathetic attempts at ridicule!
[...]

That quote has been doctored – there is no exclamation mark in the original – and it is only four words in the midst of an eighty one-word paragraph anyway.

Here is that sentence, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 30 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘What a waste of a first-rate vocabulary.
• [Richard]: ‘No ... nothing is wasted. From this day forward you will never again be able think of compassion without also thinking ‘pathos in common’ ... for I do have my ways and means of getting a fact established.
• [Respondent]: ‘There was no dispute on the etymological fact, only on its relevance.
• [Richard]: ‘Yet you will not investigate further ... you are so thoroughly convinced that your declaration is ‘set in concrete correct’ that you attempt to browbeat the other into complying with your conclusion with *pathetic attempts at ridicule* – attempts like [quote] ‘one is reminded of nothing so much as ‘The Black Knight’ from ‘Monty Python and The Holy Grail’, limblessly challenging his perceived opponent while obviously unable to mount even a semblance of a pursuit’ [endquote] – as if god almighty has spoken.
In fact, your entire demeanour in this exchange, so far, reeks of your ‘intrinsic morality’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.5a, 30 Sep 1999).

What type of personificator is it who would copy-paste four words from an eighty one-word paragraph, replace the period with an exclamation mark, and then present the resultant bastardisation as an example of an antisocial antagonistic correspondence chock full of disrespect, belittlement, unfriendliness, unkindness, arrogance, callous debunking, cynicism, sarcasm, provocation, feigned exasperation, downright unpleasantness, haughty indignation, phoney gratitude, exaggerated exclamations, denial, feigned resignation, fault finding, phoney politeness, ridicule, personal attack, browbeating and above all a total obsession with the word ‘YOU’?

Here is a useful word:

• finagle (v.): use dishonest or devious means to bring something about; fiddle (=‘cheat, swindle, falsify; get by cheating’). ~ (Oxford English Dictionary).

There are 29 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the forty-fifth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
and I thank you for giving me permission!
[...]

That quote has been doctored – there is no exclamation mark in the original – and it is only eight words between two en-dashes in the midst of a forty two-word sentence anyway.

Here are those eight words between those en-dashes, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 30 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent No. 37]: ‘By the way, I think questioning the supposedly benevolent intentions of others under the guise of ‘concern’ and ‘sympathy’ is a sign of health, not illness.
• [Richard]: ‘Sometimes it is helpful to work from the etymological roots of words ... and as the word ‘concern’ comes from the Latin ‘concernere’ (sift, distinguish) I would endorse it as an apt description of a sign of health, yes. But as ‘sympathy’ comes from the Greek ‘sym’ (together, alike) and ‘pathy’ (suffering, feeling) I am hard-pushed to see ‘suffering together’ or ‘feeling alike’ as a sign of health (similarly with ‘compassion’: the Latin ‘passio’ equals the Greek ‘pathos’ hence ‘together in pathos’). There is a widespread belief that suffering is good for you ... whereas in my experience the only good thing about suffering is when it comes to an end. Permanently.
(...)
• [Respondent]: ‘Since ‘compassion’ in this forum is far more likely to be used in the sense Gautama Buddha (according to his supposed transcribers) used it in another language, if you insist on playing the scholar feel free to analyse the etymology of the original word Buddha (allegedly) uttered. The Greek and/or Latin origins of the translated word are in this case entirely irrelevant, as it is quite clear from context that Buddha had transcended personal suffering and thus was not ‘suffering together’ with anyone.
• [Richard]: ‘Of course I am free to go chasing about through etymological dictionaries to ‘analyse the etymology of the original word Buddha (allegedly) uttered’ – *and I thank you for giving me permission* – but I rather fail to see any reason to do so. As any sophomore worthy of their salt should know, this argument you put forward would easily fall under what is generally classified as ‘The Fallacy of Irrelevant Purpose’. If you cast your eagle eye up (to the top of the page) you will find that I was responding to what the writer saw as other posters on this Mailing List [quote] ‘questioning the supposedly benevolent intentions of others under the guise of ‘concern’ and ‘sympathy’ [endquote]. If you are now proposing that other posters on this Mailing List have [quote] ‘transcended personal suffering and thus are not ‘suffering together’ with anyone’ [endquote] then you have done an abrupt about-face on your previously posted opinion of other posters’ accomplishments.
Until you can demonstrate this, then I will continue to work on the entirely reasonable assumption that they have not yet [quote] ‘transcended personal suffering’ [endquote] and that therefore they are indeed ‘suffering together’ in their ‘concern’ and ‘sympathy’. And this ‘suffering together’ form of ‘concern’ and ‘sympathy’ is certainly evident in the post that prompted the writer to make this ‘by the way’ comment in the first place.
When I write I keep my response in context’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.5a, 30 Sep 1999).

What class of personifier is it who would extract the eight words between two en-dashes, in the midst of a forty two-word sentence, append an exclamation mark in such a manner, and then present the resultant bastardisation as evidence that proves a verbal brute bullying which is but unconstructive criticism – and that they communicate with their dog better than that argumentative, accusing, pontificating, insulting, belittling, sarcastic, judgemental, condescending, snide, hammering repetitious bullying – insofar as it is not relating to one’s fellow human being without malice and sorrow at all but, rather, is perpetuating it monstrously (and that, whilst they used to think Richard had something important to share, they realise now they are no longer deluded and can thus learn nothing in dialogue with him except how to perpetuate repulsion because that is what his whole manner evokes) as his ‘belief’ in his harmlessness is just that, a ‘belief’, for it reflects in none of his words?

Here is a useful word:

• falsifier (n.): someone who falsifies; (synonyms): beguiler, cheater, deceiver, trickster, slicker, cheat (=‘someone who leads you to believe something that is not true’); fabricator, fabulist, fibber, liar. ~ (Princeton’s WordNet 3.0).

There are 28 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the forty-sixth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
any sophomore worthy of their salt are you now proposing?
[...]

As that (unreferenced) quote makes no grammatical sense a closer inspection (the words ‘are’ and ‘you’ have had their order reversed and a question mark appended) reveals that it is actually a stitched-together composite formed by extracting two part-sentences from an email written to Respondent No. 05 (September 30 1999), deleting the seventy words between them and reversing the order of ‘are’ and ‘you’ so as to justify adding the question mark.

Here are the part-sentences, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 30 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent No. 37]: ‘By the way, I think questioning the supposedly benevolent intentions of others under the guise of ‘concern’ and ‘sympathy’ is a sign of health, not illness.
• [Richard]: ‘Sometimes it is helpful to work from the etymological roots of words ... and as the word ‘concern’ comes from the Latin ‘concernere’ (sift, distinguish) I would endorse it as an apt description of a sign of health, yes. But as ‘sympathy’ comes from the Greek ‘sym’ (together, alike) and ‘pathy’ (suffering, feeling) I am hard-pushed to see ‘suffering together’ or ‘feeling alike’ as a sign of health (similarly with ‘compassion’: the Latin ‘passio’ equals the Greek ‘pathos’ hence ‘together in pathos’). There is a widespread belief that suffering is good for you ... whereas in my experience the only good thing about suffering is when it comes to an end. Permanently.
(...)
• [Respondent]: ‘Since ‘compassion’ in this forum is far more likely to be used in the sense Gautama Buddha (according to his supposed transcribers) used it in another language, if you insist on playing the scholar feel free to analyse the etymology of the original word Buddha (allegedly) uttered. The Greek and/or Latin origins of the translated word are in this case entirely irrelevant, as it is quite clear from context that Buddha had transcended personal suffering and thus was not ‘suffering together’ with anyone.
• [Richard]: ‘Of course I am free to go chasing about through etymological dictionaries to ‘analyse the etymology of the original word Buddha (allegedly) uttered’ – and I thank you for giving me permission – but I rather fail to see any reason to do so. As *any sophomore worthy of their salt* should know, this argument you put forward would easily fall under what is generally classified as ‘The Fallacy of Irrelevant Purpose’. If you cast your eagle eye up (to the top of the page) you will find that I was responding to what the writer saw as other posters on this Mailing List [quote] ‘questioning the supposedly benevolent intentions of others under the guise of ‘concern’ and ‘sympathy’ [endquote]. If *you are now proposing* that other posters on this Mailing List have [quote] ‘transcended personal suffering and thus are not ‘suffering together’ with anyone’ [endquote] then you have done an abrupt about-face on your previously posted opinion of other posters’ accomplishments.
Until you can demonstrate this, then I will continue to work on the entirely reasonable assumption that they have not yet [quote] ‘transcended personal suffering’ [endquote] and that therefore they are indeed ‘suffering together’ in their ‘concern’ and ‘sympathy’. And this ‘suffering together’ form of ‘concern’ and ‘sympathy’ is certainly evident in the post that prompted the writer to make this ‘by the way’ comment in the first place.
When I write I keep my response in context’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.5a, 30 Sep 1999).

What sort of personage is it who would abstract two part-sentences, reverse the order of two words, add a question mark, and then think they could get away with presenting the resultant bastardisation as evidence that proves a verbal brute bullying which is but unconstructive criticism – and that they communicate with their dog better than that argumentative, accusing, pontificating, insulting, belittling, sarcastic, judgemental, condescending, snide, hammering repetitious bullying – insofar as it is not relating to one’s fellow human being without malice and sorrow at all but, rather, is perpetuating it monstrously (and that, whilst they used to think Richard had something important to share, they realise now they are no longer deluded and can thus learn nothing in dialogue with him except how to perpetuate repulsion because that is what his whole manner evokes) as his ‘belief’ in his harmlessness is just that, a ‘belief’, for it reflects in none of his words?

Here is a useful word:

• booby (n.): a silly (=‘displaying a lack of judgement or common sense’), stupid, or childish person. ~ (Oxford English Dictionary).

There are 27 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the forty-seventh line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
you have done an abrupt about-face Until you can demonstrate this ...
[...]

As that (unreferenced) quote makes no grammatical sense a closer inspection (the capitalisation of the word ‘Until’ after the word ‘about-face for example) reveals that it is actually a stitched-together composite formed by extracting two part-sentences from an email written to Respondent No. 05 (September 30 1999), and deleting the nine words between them

Here are the part-sentences, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 30 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent No. 37]: ‘By the way, I think questioning the supposedly benevolent intentions of others under the guise of ‘concern’ and ‘sympathy’ is a sign of health, not illness.
• [Richard]: ‘Sometimes it is helpful to work from the etymological roots of words ... and as the word ‘concern’ comes from the Latin ‘concernere’ (sift, distinguish) I would endorse it as an apt description of a sign of health, yes. But as ‘sympathy’ comes from the Greek ‘sym’ (together, alike) and ‘pathy’ (suffering, feeling) I am hard-pushed to see ‘suffering together’ or ‘feeling alike’ as a sign of health (similarly with ‘compassion’: the Latin ‘passio’ equals the Greek ‘pathos’ hence ‘together in pathos’). There is a widespread belief that suffering is good for you ... whereas in my experience the only good thing about suffering is when it comes to an end. Permanently.
(...)
• [Respondent]: ‘Since ‘compassion’ in this forum is far more likely to be used in the sense Gautama Buddha (according to his supposed transcribers) used it in another language, if you insist on playing the scholar feel free to analyse the etymology of the original word Buddha (allegedly) uttered. The Greek and/or Latin origins of the translated word are in this case entirely irrelevant, as it is quite clear from context that Buddha had transcended personal suffering and thus was not ‘suffering together’ with anyone.
• [Richard]: ‘Of course I am free to go chasing about through etymological dictionaries to ‘analyse the etymology of the original word Buddha (allegedly) uttered’ – and I thank you for giving me permission – but I rather fail to see any reason to do so. As any sophomore worthy of their salt should know, this argument you put forward would easily fall under what is generally classified as ‘The Fallacy of Irrelevant Purpose’. If you cast your eagle eye up (to the top of the page) you will find that I was responding to what the writer saw as other posters on this Mailing List [quote] ‘questioning the supposedly benevolent intentions of others under the guise of ‘concern’ and ‘sympathy’ [endquote]. If you are now proposing that other posters on this Mailing List have [quote] ‘transcended personal suffering and thus are not ‘suffering together’ with anyone’ [endquote] then *you have done an abrupt about-face* on your previously posted opinion of other posters’ accomplishments.
*Until you can demonstrate this*, then I will continue to work on the entirely reasonable assumption that they have not yet [quote] ‘transcended personal suffering’ [endquote] and that therefore they are indeed ‘suffering together’ in their ‘concern’ and ‘sympathy’. And this ‘suffering together’ form of ‘concern’ and ‘sympathy’ is certainly evident in the post that prompted the writer to make this ‘by the way’ comment in the first place.
When I write I keep my response in context’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.5a, 30 Sep 1999).

Curiously enough, in the second version of ‘Sock Puppet Skye’s long list of [quote] ‘a HUGE assortment of epithets that made mine look piss-weak’ [endquote], which they craftily state [quote] ‘appeared on the AF list a few years later’ [endquote] – whereas it was, in fact, actually posted by ‘Sock Puppet Charlie’ (aka ‘Chaz’) on June 27, 2001 – the word ‘you’, in the quote ‘you have done an abrupt about-face’, had been changed into all-caps. Viz.:

From: Charlie Bragg
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 9:34 PM
To: actualfreedom@listbot.com
Subject: Disrespect
Richard wrote:
[...]
YOU have done an abrupt about-face
Until you can demonstrate this...
[...]

And when the third version of ‘Sock Puppet Skye’s long list of [quote] ‘a HUGE assortment of epithets that made mine look piss-weak’ [endquote] was posted on October 24, 2004 – by their alter ego ‘Sock Puppet Xan’ (aka ‘Ron’ or ‘Ron X’) – the word ‘you’, in the quote ‘you have done an abrupt about-face’, had also been changed into all-caps. Viz.:

From: xan xuereb
Date: Sun Oct 24 2004 - 04:34:47 AEST
To: actualfreedom@topica.com
Subject: Strange blindness
Richard wrote:
[...]
YOU have done an abrupt about-face
Until you can demonstrate this...
[...]

At this juncture it is again pertinent to note that, when Richard demonstrated on October 27 2004 how some of the quotes had been doctored so as to impute passion/emotion, ‘Sock Puppet Ron’ (aka ‘Xan’ or ‘Ron X’) insisted that all the excerpts were precisely copied and pasted. Viz.:

• [Ron]: ‘I’m not going to waste my precious time (...) lets just leave it to anyone who’s interested in contacting the members still on that Krishnamurti list if they wish confirmation that *the excerpts were precisely copied and pasted* from their own correspondences with you’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, The Actual Freedom List, No.48, 28 Oct 2004).

Yet the (supposedly) precisely copied and pasted excerpt [quote] ‘you have done an abrupt about-face’ [endquote] is not to be found, in that format, in versions two and three.

What is in versions two and three is the (supposedly) precisely copied and pasted excerpt [quote] ‘YOU have done an abrupt about-face’ [endquote].

Therefore, it is undeniably obvious that the puppeteer manipulating these sock puppets is a liar.

• liar (n.): falsifier, perjurer, fibber, fabricator, prevaricator; (informal): storyteller; [e.g.]: ‘He was a liar and a cheat’. ~ (Collins English Thesaurus).

There are 26 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the forty-eighth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
it would serve far better to use ...
[...]

Here is that quote, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 25 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Since ‘compassion’ in this forum is far more likely to be used in the sense Gautama Buddha (according to his supposed transcribers) used it in another language, if you insist on playing the scholar feel free to analyse the etymology of the original word Buddha (allegedly) uttered. The Greek and/or Latin origins of the translated word are in this case entirely irrelevant, as it is quite clear from context that Buddha had transcended personal suffering and thus was not ‘suffering together’ with anyone.
• [Richard]: ‘Of course I am free to go chasing about through etymological dictionaries to ‘analyse the etymology of the original word Buddha (allegedly) uttered’ – and I thank you for giving me permission – but I rather fail to see any reason to do so. As any sophomore worthy of their salt should know, this argument you put forward would easily fall under what is generally classified as ‘The Fallacy of Irrelevant Purpose’. If you cast your eagle eye up (to the top of the page) you will find that I was responding to what the writer saw as other posters on this Mailing List ‘questioning the supposedly benevolent intentions of others under the guise of ‘concern’ and ‘sympathy’. If you are now proposing that other posters on this Mailing List have ‘transcended personal suffering and thus are not ‘suffering together’ with anyone’ then you have done an abrupt about-face on your previously posted opinion of other posters’ accomplishments.
Until you can demonstrate this, then I will continue to work on the entirely reasonable assumption that they have not yet ‘transcended personal suffering’ and that therefore they are indeed ‘suffering together’ in their ‘concern’ and ‘sympathy’. And this ‘suffering together’ form of ‘concern’ and ‘sympathy’ is certainly evident in the post that prompted the writer to make this ‘by the way’ comment in the first place.
When I write I keep my response in context.
• [Respondent]: ‘Of course you are far more familiar with English etymology, which you presented because it coincidentally served your rhetorical purpose. There is in my view no better English word than ‘compassion’ to describe ongoing sensitivity to suffering sans personal suffering. Given its evolved consensus meaning and implications it suffices at least as well as any alternative English offers.
• [Richard]: ‘Okay ... I will go with you in your irrelevant dissertation: seeing that this is a Mailing List set up under the auspices of the ‘Teachings’ brought into the world by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti (who used the word ‘compassion’ frequently and with special emphasis on what he meant by it) then *it would serve far better to use* his example than speculate about what a long-dead deity such as Mr. Gotama the Sakyan may or may not have said or done (if he lived at all).
As Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was sometimes moved to tears, becoming visibly distressed, when giving talks about human relationship (and as this is on tape no one will have to go chasing anywhere through any ancient scrolls) there is no evidence of dispassionate consideration and care. It would appear then that, seeing as at least one enlightened person puts lie to what you say above about the [quote] ‘ongoing sensitivity to suffering sans personal suffering’ [endquote] meaning that you are trying to impose upon the word, it may be quite reasonable to consider that the etymology of ‘compassion’ (‘pathos in common’) still holds true despite your assurances that it has an [quote] ‘evolved consensus meaning and implications’ [endquote] that makes it exempt from the meaning ‘suffering together’.
I am happy to explore any other irrelevancies you fancy to bring forward ... until then: given that what I was saying (further above) was that ‘suffering together’ is not a sign of health, what word or words would you use to convey a dispassionate consideration and care for one’s fellow human being if one is not to understand the affective roots of the commonly used words for such sensible concern ... such as ‘pity’, ‘sympathy’, ‘empathy’, ‘commiseration’, ‘solicitous’ and ‘compassionate’? [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.5a, 25 Sep 1999).

What rank bizarrerie it is how ‘Sock Puppet Skye’ could assert, in their accompanying condemnatory judgement, that those highlighted-for-convenience words are a verbal brute bullying which is but unconstructive criticism – and they communicate with their dog better than that argumentative, accusing, pontificating, insulting, belittling, sarcastic, judgemental, condescending, snide, hammering repetitious bullying – insofar as it is not relating to one’s fellow human being without malice and sorrow at all but, rather, is perpetuating it monstrously (and that, whilst they used to think Richard had something important to share, they realise now they are no longer deluded and can thus learn nothing in dialogue with him except how to perpetuate repulsion because that is what his whole manner evokes) as his ‘belief’ in his harmlessness is just that, a ‘belief’, for it reflects in none of his words.

There are 25 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the forty-ninth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
any other irrelevancies you fancy to bring forward?
[...]

That quote has been doctored – there is no question mark after the word ‘forward’ in the original – and the key words ‘I am happy to explore’ have been snipped off the beginning of it.

Here are those eight quoted words, embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 25 1999.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Of course you are far more familiar with English etymology, which you presented because it coincidentally served your rhetorical purpose. There is in my view no better English word than ‘compassion’ to describe ongoing sensitivity to suffering sans personal suffering. Given its evolved consensus meaning and implications it suffices at least as well as any alternative English offers.
• [Richard]: ‘Okay ... I will go with you in your irrelevant dissertation: seeing that this is a Mailing List set up under the auspices of the ‘Teachings’ brought into the world by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti (who used the word ‘compassion’ frequently and with special emphasis on what he meant by it) then it would serve far better to use his example than speculate about what a long-dead deity such as Mr. Gotama the Sakyan may or may not have said or done (if he lived at all).
As Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was sometimes moved to tears, becoming visibly distressed, when giving talks about human relationship (and as this is on tape no one will have to go chasing anywhere through any ancient scrolls) there is no evidence of dispassionate consideration and care. It would appear then that, seeing as at least one enlightened person puts lie to what you say above about the [quote] ‘ongoing sensitivity to suffering sans personal suffering’ [endquote] meaning that you are trying to impose upon the word, it may be quite reasonable to consider that the etymology of ‘compassion’ (‘pathos in common’) still holds true despite your assurances that it has an [quote] ‘evolved consensus meaning and implications’ [endquote] that makes it exempt from the meaning ‘suffering together’.
I am happy to explore *any other irrelevancies you fancy to bring forward* ... until then: given that what I was saying (further above) was that ‘suffering together’ is not a sign of health, what word or words would you use to convey a dispassionate consideration and care for one’s fellow human being if one is not to understand the affective roots of the commonly used words for such sensible concern ... such as ‘pity’, ‘sympathy’, ‘empathy’, ‘commiseration’, ‘solicitous’ and ‘compassionate’? [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.5a, 25 Sep 1999).

Oddly enough, for it is such a trifling thing, in the third version of ‘Sock Puppet Skye’s long list of [quote] “a HUGE assortment of epithets that made mine look piss-weak” [endquote] was posted on October 24, 2004 – by their alter ego ‘Sock Puppet Xan’ (aka ‘Ron’ or ‘Ron X’) – an ellipsis had been all-of-a-sudden inserted before the doctored snippet. Viz.:

From: xan xuereb
Date: Sun Oct 24 2004 - 04:34:47 AEST
To: actualfreedom@topica.com
Subject: Strange blindness
Richard wrote:
[...]
...any other irrelevancies you fancy to bring forward?
[...]

What ilk of personality is it who would snip the key words off the beginning of a sanguine offer, replace the ellipsis which follows with a question mark, belatedly insert an ellipsis before the doctored snippet (in their third version only), and then present the resultant bastardisation as an example of nothing but the vain self protective attacks of an ignorant fool – inasmuch the nonsensical, valueless, nit-picking, personal attacks; the twisting of facts, one-upmanship and avoidance of clear and logical questions, makes it obvious the guy has a major communication problem (in that he is woefully incompetent, vain and arrogant and sorely lacking in basic communication skills) – and where the context and manner in which he uses the words ‘oh’ and ‘umm’ smacks of an immature and insolent attitude, such as to not waste precious time replying to his pretentious denials of what could not be more obviously the dirty work of nothing but a clown?

Here is a useful word:

• adulterator (n.): a person who adulterates (=‘renders spurious; debases’). ~ (Oxford English Dictionary).

There are 24 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the fiftieth line, in its original format, copy-pasted from the then-online Berlin Archives on October 01 1999:

Message No. 00030 of Archive 99/10:
From: ‘Skye Chambers’
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:38:58 +1000.
Subject: Ranting Richard
Richard wrote:
[...]
... and then get I told that I am arrogant!
[...]

This quote is grammatically incorrect – the four words ”then get I told” are nonsensical – and is a doctored version of an already doctored version of a quote which has previously appeared as Quote No. 36 (and in Quote No. 20 where it was tacked on to another sentence – the sentence in which the ten parenthesised words ‘offering me the word ‘coffee’ instead of the actual substance’ had been deleted – with an extra first person pronoun inserted, two parenthesised words deleted, and the exclamation mark appended in their place).

So, for the third time, here is the actual part-sentence (with neither that extra first person pronoun nor the exclamation mark), embedded in the email exchange it was extracted from, and it is plain to see that there is simply no way those highlighted-for-convenience words Richard wrote can [quote] “prove his malice was still alive and very much kicking” [endquote] on September 29 1999.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘Are you saying that the possibility of peace-on-earth is so remote that one should give up before even trying? Thus all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides will go on for ever and a day.
• [Respondent]: ‘No, not saying that. I am saying that all the human effort thus far does not seem to have fixed the problem and the problem seems to be complex indeed.
• [Richard]: ‘Okay ... ‘all the human effort thus far does not seem to have fixed the problem’ are the key-words. I have discovered something entirely new in human history ... and mostly, when I report my experience to my fellow human beings, people wish to retry ‘all the human effort’ which, as you so rightly say ‘thus far does not seem to have fixed the problem’. For clarity I call it the ‘Tried and Failed’ ... *and then get told that I am arrogant* (or whatever)’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No.38, 29 Sep 1999).

What manner of a personator is it who would doctor a previously doctored quote (‘I get told’) into something which makes no grammatical sense (‘then get I told’) only to then insist that the excerpts were precisely copied and pasted?