Facts (Actuality) and Groupthink (Orthodoxy) ## ‘He was using a HUGE Assortment of Epithets’: Confutation (please make sure “java-scripting” is enabled in order for the tool-tips to function properly; mouse-hover on the yellow rectangular image to open; left-click on the image to hold). Editorial note: RICHARD: For over nine years now [since 2000] a certain middle-aged codger (whose family name will not appear here lest this email be censored for that hypocritical reason), sitting hunched before a computer with dogs for company and an array of sock-puppet aliases, has cyber-stalked the discoverer of an actual freedom from the human condition, in various forums where his discovery is discussed, in an ongoing attempt to vilify/ discredit same in any way possible no matter how slight (as evidenced, for instance, in the recent howler of the week award) ... to the point it amounts to an obsession, at the very least, if not a persecution. As reasoned argument with such a vilifier/ discreditor is a fruitless method – devolving very quickly into a slanging match in which a non-vilifier simply cannot compete – a more beneficial method is to discredit the discreditor ... to wit: demonstrate a complete and utter lack of credibility, via the marked absence of integrity, and the nasty game is exposed. (Richard, List D, No. 4, 10 May 2009) * April 08 2023 RICHARD: On Tuesday, 18 May 1999, a persona using the screen name ‘Skye-Chambers’ posted their first email to a discussion-type mailing list, named ‘Listening-l’ (aka K-List), which was set-up under the auspices of ‘The Teachings’ which the Indian nature-mystic Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti had brought into the world (i.e., a real-world after-death escapism). Viz.: Message No. 01124 of Archive 99/05 Subject: Hello All From: Skye Chambers To: Listening-l Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 Hello everyone, I’ve just joined the list today after trying for weeks to subscribe, but at last with Dirks help finally I made it, whew. (...) Looking forward to communicating with you all, Love and Light, Skye. Richard had been active on this mailing list for more than a year – having already contributed over four hundred posts – and on Tuesday, June 29, 1999, was not at all surprised when an email arrived at his ‘in-box’ from ‘Skye-Chambers’ a month later. Viz.: From: ‘Skye Chambers’ To: Richard Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 Subject: Thank you Richard Every word you say is a bright gem in the darkness, thank you Richard. Now I understand why there can be no new identity for ego me, no new birth just total annihilation, total self immolation, no more limited beliefs in always conditional love, compassion, truth. As you wrote: ‘peace-on-earth is already here; it has always been here and always will be’ ... ego me has been standing in its way! [...] Please don’t stop helping us inquire, you are the only member on the list that makes continuous sense, though I do very much appreciate the contributions of everyone else too. I wait with baited breath for every no nonsense dialogue you post. I would like to ask you many questions, but the time is not now. I have need of deep introspection and solitude at times. When I return to the list in a month or two, it is my fervent wish to share in your insightful dialogues. [...]. Thank you from the depths of my heart Richard. I will post this again to the list when I return. From Skye, getting off her backside too. (Richard, List B, No. 40, 29 June 1999). On Tuesday, July 13, 1999, ‘Skye-Chambers’ again wrote to Richard, via the same IP address, but signing-off with the screen name ‘Neemyth’. Viz.: From: neemth kam Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 1999 To: Richard Subject: Web Site Hi Richard, I read on the K-list that you have a web site which I would love to visit, if that's OK with you of course. Could I trouble you to send me its URL? With much appreciation, Neemyth. The following month, on Thursday, 12 August 1999, ‘Skye-Chambers’, using the screen name ‘Neemyth’, sent the following post to the ‘Listening-l’ mailing list. Viz.: Message No. 00560 of Archive 99/08. Subject: Cosmos (solid objects). From: ‘neemth kam’ To: Listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 Dear friends, I've been enjoying your posts for many months, thank you. I hope you don't mind me unlurking for a moment. [...] Seeing intelligently may require a letting go of the concept of self. When 'I' am not here everything 'Is', the play of livingness goes on without 'me' and the brain continues to observe. [...] ‘Neemyth’ posted 22 emails all told – through to 22 Aug 1999 – with their fifth post somewhat biographical. Viz.: Message 00798 of Archive 99/08. Subject: Cosmos/[No. 4] From: ‘neemth kam’ To: Listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999. My Good [No. 4], Your verbosity astounded me [...] I looked for a purpose to stimulate a reply and found nothing as magical as a bushwalk in this bright winter sunshine, so I headed out with the dogs into the fresh country air. Upon my return I quickly typed this out so I could spend the afternoon under an old oak tree in the courtyard of the BonTon Cafe sipping a strong cappuccino and savouring a glorious ‘Death by Chocolate’ dessert with a delightfully witty companion as the sun goes down. [...] On Monday, 13 September, 1999, ‘Neemyth’ wrote to The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list (then hosted on ‘List-Bot’) as follows. Viz.: From: neemyth kam Sent: Monday, September 13, 1999 To: actualfreedom@listbot.com Subject: An Observation Well I've spent enough time reading the site to know that my letter will be blocked by Richards ego or replied to 'predictably' with Richard’s usual over excited egotistical arrogance, feigned harmlessness, cut and paste laziness and of course those impressive 'big words' that make him look like an inconsiderate idiot. [...]. Tacky tactics man. You might have stumbled upon something Richard but at the rate your going someone else with enough intelligent and love for his fellow human beings to learn how to communicate is going to get the actualism message across because your failing miserably. (Richard, List B, No. 9, 12 September 1999). All the while ‘Skye-Chambers’ continued to post on the ‘K-list’ – 61 emails all told – through to Monday, 4 Oct 1999. Viz.: Message No. 00218 of Archive 99/10 Subject: Re: Awareness From: ‘Skye Chambers’ To: Listening-l Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 I am reading from Nisargadatta’s ‘I Am That’ [...] I’ll away for a few weeks, best to all Skye. Three days before going away for those few weeks they posted a “Ranting Richard” email containing a long list of unreferenced quotes (allegedly “precisely copied and pasted” excerpts) from some of Richard’s most recent emails of that period. Their post also included a pleonastic vilification to justify the public posting of such a list. Viz.: 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 [...] Skye: And Lord help us. All this verbal brute bullying is but unconstructive criticism I communicate with my dog better than this, argumentative, accusing, pontificating, insulting, belittling, sarcastic, judgemental, condescending, snide, hammering repetitious bullying. This is not relating to your fellow human being without malice and sorrow at all. Rather you perpetuate it, monstrously!. I used to think you had something important to share. I realise now I am no longer deluded. I can learn nothing in dialog with you, except how to perpetuate repulsion, that is what your whole manner evokes. Your ‘belief’ in your harmlessness is just that a ‘belief’, for it reflects in none of your words. [...] (Richard, List B, No. 40, 2 October 1999). However, as will become more and more obvious further on, it is utterly bizarre how ‘Skye-Chambers’ could assert, in that accompanying condemnatory judgement of theirs, how the words in the long list of unreferenced quotes are in fact 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. Some six months later a personator using the screen name ‘Charlie-Bragg’ (aka ‘Chaz’ alias ‘Neemyth’ alias ‘Skye’) wrote to The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list (hosted on ‘List-Bot’) as follows. Viz.: From: Charlie Bragg Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 To: actualfreedom@listbot.com Subject: Imagination I've been perusing the actual freedom website on and off for a while now and want to thank you for making it available on the web. I have many questions, but would like to start with one which i find most pressing. [...]. I am a designer by profession. Could you please elaborate on how the brain can think without visually imaging, or perhaps i have misunderstood what you mean? Your time is most appreciated Chaz In a somewhat biographical email ‘Charlie-Bragg’ wrote of travelling in India, as a 20-year-old in 1976, hanging around opium dens in Bombay and dancing away the New Year in Goa. Viz.: From: Charlie Bragg Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 To: actualfreedom@listbot.com Subject: Re: Imagination Thank you for your patience Richard. The archives have been a great help, and i have already found answers there to many of my questions. i certainly feel a deep gratitude for your breakthrough Richard and everyone else's on the list. Actualism is a shock to the core and i keep wondering how i got here. [...] In 1976, fresh out of my teens, i found myself in Bombay, buying a train ticket to Poona, but something came over me and i couldn't bring myself to go, so i gave the ticket away to a backpacker crossing the street. Something about idolising felt ridiculous to me, so i hung around the Bombay opium dens instead (not nearly as dangerous, LOL :) and danced away the New Year in pagan Goa. What a joy. [...] After my travels i was quite content working and entertaining myself philosophically, enjoying life and reading [...]. Then in April 99 i hit the mailing lists. Ah what a joy this technology is, it was then that i began to notice the failure of enlightenment. So here i am. [...] Best of health to you Richard Charlie Richard, Vineeto and Peter had already sussed out that ‘Charlie-Bragg’ and ‘Neemyth’ and ‘Skye-Chambers’ were all sock-puppets, and, a week or so after their first post, ‘Charlie-Bragg’ unwittingly provided confirmation when signing-off as ‘Skye’. Viz.: From: Charlie Bragg Sent: Monday, May 29, 2000 To: actualfreedom@listbot.com Subject: Re: Imagination [...] Okay, thank you very much Richard, i shall now look into this and the AF website further. Regards, Skye A few days later an ‘oops’ type of error-acknowledgement was posted by ‘Charlie-Bragg’. Viz.: From: Charlie Bragg Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 To: actualfreedom@listbot.com Subject: Internet Aliases Damn :))) now its my turn for the ‘Whoops! Well, well, well ... ten demerits for not paying attention’. Chaz. P.S By the time I've accidentally signed all four we really will know 'what' I am and not who i am, yes? Hohoho ;))))) This was followed-up the next day with an explanatory post, from ‘Charlie-Bragg’ to Peter, wherein the “Ranting Richard” post on the ‘K-list’ from ‘Skye-Chambers’ was waved away via a degenerate “total bimbo” deprecation followed by a mea-culpa turnabout. 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? (Richard, List B, No. 10a, 27 July 2000). 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’. A little more than three years after that reposting a personificator using the screen name ‘Xan-Xuereb’ (aka ‘Ron’ alias ‘Chaz’ alias ‘Neemyth’ alias ‘Skye’) posted an email on Sunday, October 24, 2004, containing a differently modified version of the 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 (by then hosted on ‘Topica’). Viz.: From: xan xuereb Date: Sun Oct 24 2004 To: actualfreedom@topica.com Subject: Strange blindness [Respondent No. 27]: I don't personally see any of what Richard writes as ‘non-sensical, valueless, nit-picking, personal attacks, twisting of facts, avoiding clear and logical questions, one-upmanship.’ [...] # OK. Here is an excerpt 'of excerpts' posted to this list a few years ago. Add them to his impassioned ‘Ohs!’ and ‘..umms..’ and ‘just why on earths’ and its as obvious the guy has a major communication problem. [...] They are nothing the vain self protective attacks of an ignorant fool. Ron. Further vilification ensued, in a follow-up email, as a reaction to having it demonstrably pointed out online by Richard (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 87, 27 October 2004) (on that very same day) how the quotes were doctored and/or misrepresented so as to impute passion/ emotion. Viz.: From: xan xuereb Date: Sun Oct 24 2004 To: actualfreedom@topica.com Subject: Strange blindness [...] I'm not going to waste my precious time replying to the rest of your pretentious denials. [...] 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. Or wait until the old archives are reinstated. Nevertheless anyone can see they could not be more obviously your dirty work. And yet another email of theirs (in reaction to Richard’s response to another correspondent (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 87, 5 November 2004) on the same matter) contained even more vilification. Viz.: From: xan xuereb Date: Sun Nov 02 2004 To: actualfreedom@topica.com Subject: Strange blindness How vain and deluded you are. [...] All you manage to prove (time and time again ad nauseam) is that simple clarity has escaped you. That you are woefully incompetent, vain and arrogant and sorely lacking in basic communication skills. All of which that belies your every word. You are nothing but a clown [...] Once again it is utterly bizarre how ‘Sock Puppet Ron’ could assert, in their accompanying condemnatory judgement and follow-up emails, how the words in the long list of unreferenced quotes are in fact 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. A little over four years after that reposting of a reposting (Sunday, Dec 14, 2008) a personifier using the screen name ‘Skye-Belle’ (aka ‘Xan’ alias ‘Ron’ alias ‘Chaz’ alias ‘Neemyth’ alias ‘Skye-Chambers’) reposted that reposting of a reposting in a similarly vilifying email just as before (allegedly “precisely copied and pasted” excerpts) to a discussion-type mailing list named ‘Actual Freedom’ (hosted on ‘Yahoo-Groups’), which was set-up to discuss an actual freedom from the human condition based primarily upon the reports/ descriptions/ explanations of its discover, Richard, and which are made freely available on the internet by The Actual Freedom Trust. Viz.: Message #3840 To: actualfreedom@yahoogroups.com From: ‘skyebellau’ Date: Sun Dec 14, 2008 Subject: Re: I loved [No. 53] [...] He [Richard] 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 [...] As this issue is now (on Thursday, 15 January, 2009) more than nine years old, and yet the puppeteer manipulating those sock puppets is still getting mileage out of that long list of doctored and/or misrepresented quotes, it is obviously high time that a fully-referenced duly-annotated quote-by-quote confutation was made public. * • Addendum (on Saturday, 08 April, 2023): The exposé triggered by the ‘middle-aged codger’ event[*] of May 09, 2009, rendered the publishment of this confutation redundant – in something akin to a panicked frenzy of activity ‘Skye-Belle’, a 53-year-old cross-dresser immediately deleted Richard’s ‘middle-aged-codger’ emails[‡] and all of their own (vituperatory) posts and decamped tout-de-suite – and thus this confutation has languished amidst other unpublished material on an external hard-drive and other back-up media for these last fourteen years. __________ [*][Skye-Belle]: (...). Richard, I was just goading, you don’t really look like [a character in a novel], but your silly big daddy power trip reminds me of him. Your quite handsome in fact (for an old dude) and no I’m not buttering you up, just setting the record straight. G’day Chaz, You’re wearing quite well yourself, considering how you are a middle-aged codger now. Speaking of which: how is the ‘Death by Chocolate’ dessert at the Bon Ton Café these days ... still as glorious as ever? Regards, Richard. (Richard, List D, No. 5, 9 May 2005b). __________ [‡][Richard]: (...). For over nine years now a certain *middle-aged codger, sitting hunched before a computer with dogs for company and an array of sock-puppet aliases*, has cyber-stalked the discoverer of an actual freedom from the human condition, in various forums where his discovery is discussed, in an ongoing attempt to vilify/ discredit same in any way possible no matter how slight (as evidenced, for instance, in the recent ‘howler of the week’ award) (Richard, List D, No. 5, 9 May 2009) ... to the point it amounts to an obsession, at the very least, if not a persecution. (Richard, List D, No. 4, 10 May 2009). __________ Further substantiation of it being an obsessive (if not a persecutory) compulsion to cyber-stalk the discoverer of an actual freedom from the human condition, in various forums, was evidenced when a Heckle-n-Jeckle (Richard, List D, No. 5, 9 May 2005a) tag-team type of personage using the screen names ‘Human-Being-a-Fellow’ and ‘Infinity-Zero-0’ (aka ‘Skye-Belle’ alias ‘Xan’ alias ‘Ron’ alias ‘Chaz’ alias ‘Neemyth’ alias ‘Skye-Chambers’), and dubbed the ‘The Bragg-Bros!’ (Richard, List D, No. 5a, 1 July 2013) by Richard, was inspired by the ‘mother of all kerfuffles’ to post all manner of made-up stuff about ‘Richard & Associates’ (Richard, List D, No. 48a, #Associates) on the ‘Yahoo-Groups Forum’ – more than a few of which were flat-out libellous lies (Richard, List D, No. 5, 17 February 2012) such as to constitute, without any doubt whatsoever, an actionable case (Richard, List D, No. 5, 31 December 2012a) in law – only to sink back into the miasmic obscurity whence they arose (and were eventually banned by Claudiu, in his ‘moderator’ capacity, at a much later date) as Richard meticulously, progressively, and relentlessly exposed the entire ‘kerfuffle’ for the pathematic sham it always had been from the get-go. (Richard, List D, No. 4, 8 January 2013). Whilst on the topic of lying, and for the benefit of anyone who has never heard of the Latin phrase ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ (‘false in one, false in all’), the following is well worth bearing in mind. Viz.: • [quote]: ‘A Roman legal principle indicating that a witness who wilfully falsifies one matter is not credible on any matter. The underlying motive for attorneys to impeach opposing witnesses in court: the principle discredits the rest of their testimony if it is without corroboration’. ~ (2023 Wikipedia Encyclopaedia). For an obvious example, a notorious persona and/or personator and/or personificator and/or personifier and/or personage, who is on record as having wilfully lied multiple times, again and again, is surely an exemplary case of ‘falsus in multis, falsus in omnibus’. Just recently (in March 2023), when an impersonator using the screen name ‘Lexej’ began posting negative messages on the ‘Discuss Actualism Online’ forum – messages thoughtlessly critical, in the groupthink-orthodoxy way, regarding the facts-n-actuality articles on the scientifically-baseless ‘Tobacco Smoke Kills’ shakedown and the neo-ludditean ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ scam which Richard and Vineeto recently published – it only took the sharp-eyed forum member Rick a very short while to expose how this now-elderly-codger (a 67-year-old senior citizen) was posting blocks of text, purloined sans provenance attribution from The Actual Freedom Trust website, to ‘The Motte’ forum, under the screen name ‘Sky’, and, thereafter, copy-pasting the agnosic groupthink-orthodoxy reactions from there, as if they came from his own agnosy, onto the ‘Discuss Actualism Online’ forum. Well done, Rick! Accordingly, and primarily for the benefit of those who came along later, this fully-referenced duly-annotated quote-by-quote confutation is finally being made public. First of all, although there were seventy three lines of quotes – all double-spaced so as to clearly separate each line – more than a few of the lines of quotes were actually stitched-together composites comprising of either sentences and part-sentences or questions and part questions (snippets) formed by extracting them from either different parts in an email to a co-respondent or from different parts of different emails, on different days, to a co-respondent and sometimes from different parts of different emails on different days to different co-respondents ... all jumbled together, sometimes out of chronological order, and never with any acknowledgement of that misleading modus operandi (let alone any references for verification). Thus the (apparently) seventy three quotes were actually one hundred and two (unreferenced) quotes. Furthermore, they were all extracted from twenty one emails posted in an eleven-day period (from 20 September 1999 to 01 October 1999) to eight co-respondents ... to wit: • Respondent No. 03 (1 quote from 1 email). • Respondent No. 05 (24 quotes from 3 emails). • Respondent No. 12 (6 quotes from 4 emails). • Respondent No. 17 (16 quotes from 2 emails). • Respondent No. 25 (4 quotes from 4 emails). • Respondent No. 33 (25 quotes from 4 emails). • Respondent No. 36 (14 quotes from 1 email). • Respondent No. 38 (12 quotes from 2 emails). In view of the fact that Richard had posted a total of four hundred and eighty seven emails to that mailing list, prior to that eleven-day period, to thirty nine different co-respondents over a fifteen month span, it is hardly a representative sampling but, rather, a small and concentrated grouping. Moreover, a lot more than merely a few of the one hundred and two (unreferenced) quotes were quite blatantly doctored – a total of twenty two had an exclamation mark gratuitously added (some even replacing a question mark) – and several had the first word of a snippet capitalised (so as to make it appear to be an exclamatory sentence) whilst some others had a word, or two, either gratuitously added or arbitrarily deleted ... or even their order reversed. For instance (from the twentieth line of quotes in the list): • [Online Version]: ... and then get told that I am arrogant (or whatever). • [Skye’s Version]: ... and then I get told that I am arrogant! Thus the parenthesised words ‘or whatever’ have been deleted; the period has been changed to an exclamation mark; the word ‘I’ has been inserted between the words ‘then’ and ‘get’. However, even that doctored quote was re-doctored (in the fiftieth line of quotes on the long list): • [Skye’s First Version]: ... and then I get told that I am arrogant! • [Skye’s Next Version]: ... and then get I told that I am arrogant! As the re-doctored version makes no grammatical sense whatsoever (“then get I told”) it makes mockery of any assertion that the long list of quotes were precisely copied and pasted. Viz.: • [Ron]: ‘I’m not going to waste my precious time replying to the rest of your pretentious denials. (...) 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 October 2004). 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 September 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. 36, 25 September 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 September 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, 1 October 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 October 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 September 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 September 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 October 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 September 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 September 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 October 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 October 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 October 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 October 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 October 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 October 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 September 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 October 1999). It is downright 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 57 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the seventeenth 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 the extent of your understanding of yourself? [...] That question has been doctored – the first word in the original, ‘Is’, has been deleted and the second word ‘this’ has been capitalised – and it is only the first eight words of a twenty-word question anyway. 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 July 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 October 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 October 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 October 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 September 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 October 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 September 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. Viz.: • [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 October 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 September 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 September 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 September 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 September 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 September 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 September 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 October 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 September 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 September 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 October 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 September 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 October 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 September 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 September 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 September 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 September 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 September 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 September 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 October 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 September 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 September 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 September 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 September 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 September 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 September 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 September 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 September 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 September 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 September 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 September 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 September 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 September 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 October 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 September 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 September 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 September 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? Here is a useful word: • careless (adj.): inattentive (=‘not paying attention; heedless’), negligent (of), thoughtless. ~ (Oxford English Dictionary). There are 23 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the fifty-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: [...] might I suggest that you revisit your understanding unless you are proposing outside of your dour purview You may very well be surprised to find just what is relevant and what is not, eh? [...] As that (unreferenced) quote makes no grammatical sense whatsoever a closer inspection (the capitalisation of the word ‘You’ after the word ‘purview for example) reveals that it is actually a stitched-together composite formed by extracting four part-sentences from three different replies. Here are those four 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 29 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’, ‘empathy’, ‘commiseration’, ‘solicitous’ 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. • [Respondent]: ‘It is clear that such a hypothetical ‘at its best’ scenario is mere wishful thinking in regard to your rhetorical use of English etymology in this instance. • [Richard]: ‘But it is not clear at all ... if it is clear for you then *might I suggest that you revisit your understanding* of what sublimation and transcendence means? • [Respondent]: ‘The result is not even ‘settling for second-best’, it is a third-rate obfuscation of what ‘compassion’ has come to mean in matters of the human psyche and spirit, a pedant’s self-serving side trip that deservedly ended in a cul de sac. • [Richard]: ‘Yet the word compassion [quote] ‘has come to mean in matters of the human psyche and spirit’ [endquote] precisely what its etymology demonstrates ... *unless you are proposing* that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti faked his tears and distress in an elaborate theatrical performance designed to deceive his audience into feeling that he truly cared? The ‘cul de sac’ would appear to have no existence *outside of your dour purview*. • [Respondent]: ‘In your supposed effort to avoid ‘settling’, you have achieved your usual sound and fury – and signified nothing of any relevance. • [Richard]: ‘*You may very well be surprised to find just what is relevant and what is not, eh?*’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 38, 29 September 1999). What out-and-out 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 22 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the fifty-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 am indeed talking of ... [...] 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 23 1999. Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘I am describing the already always existing peace-on-earth ... whereas Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti is describing a metaphysical after-death Eternal Peace (by whatever name). Mr. Gotama the Sakyan called it the ‘Deathless’ ... surely that description gives you the clue as to which peace is actual and which peace is fantasy? • [Respondent]: ‘Could you provide a quote of Krishnamurti where he says something even close to what you are attributing to him above? • [Richard]: ‘Yes ... several. But would that be of assistance? My experience on this Mailing List, when I do supply a quote upon request, is that the quote is dismissed for a wide range of – usually puerile – reasons (or ignored). • [Respondent]: ‘And aren’t you talking about the always existing peace on Earth which is un-eclipsed through the death of the psychologically divided me? • [Richard]: ‘*I am indeed talking of* the already always existing physical before-death peace-on-earth which becomes apparent when ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul become extinct. Yet it is the universe that is ‘deathless’ ... not me. I was born, I live for a number of years, then I die ... and death is the end. Finish’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 25d, 23 September 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 21 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the fifty-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: [...] Good ... perhaps we can get down to business? [...] 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 20 1999. Viz.: • [Respondent]: ‘Could you give some examples of how your daily life changed (not in terms of how others saw you, but how you saw life and the ‘mess’ that is the human condition? • [Richard]: ‘I know by direct experiencing each momentagain that all malice and sorrow are feelings and are not, therefore, actual. They may be real – very real at times – but they are not actual. The direct results of having these feelings – these emotions and passions and calentures – are acted out in this actual world in the form of wars, murders, rapes, domestic violence, child abuse, suicides and so on ... but all these actions are unnecessary. They all stem from feelings ... and emotions and passions and calentures are self-induced (‘I’ am passion and passion is ‘me’) and, as such, can be eliminated. Then there is peace-on-earth. Have you never been deep in a rain-forest ... or any wilderness, for that matter? Have you ever, as you have travelled deeper and deeper into this other world of natural delight, ever experienced an intensely hushed stillness that is vast and immense yet so simply here? I am not referring to a feeling of awe or reverence or great beauty – to have any emotion or passion at all is to miss the actuality of this moment – nor am I referring to any blissful or euphoric or rapturous state of being. It is a sensate experience, not an affective state. I am talking about the factual and simple actualness of earthy existence being experienced whilst ambling along without any particular thought in mind ... yet not being mindless either. And then, when a sparkling intimacy occurs, do not the woods take on a fairy-tale-like quality? Is one not in a paradisiacal environment that envelops yet leaves one free? This is the peace that I speak of. At this magical moment there is no ‘I’ in the head or ‘me’ in the heart ... there is this apperceptive awareness wherein thought can operate freely without the encumbrance of any feelings whatsoever. It is not my peace nor yours ... yet it is here for everyone and anyone for the asking ... for the daring to be here as this body only. One does this by stepping out of the real world into this actual world, as this flesh and blood body, leaving your ‘self’ behind where ‘you’ belong ... in the litigious ‘Land of Lament’. This peace-on-earth delivers the goods so longed for through aeons. (...) • [Respondent]: ‘By going into this action you took, you will present the opportunity for me to see how your words ‘I was run by an ego and soul’ strike a chord in my own experience of life on earth. • [Richard]: ‘Has this [the above words] been of any assistance? • [Respondent]: ‘It is nothing new. • [Richard]: ‘Ahh ... good. Can you put me into contact with these peoples who experience life as I do twenty four hours a day please? It would be such fun comparing notes ... and because in eighteen years of scouring the books and travelling overseas and discussing the matter with others, no one else, as far as I have been able to ascertain, has acted upon the PCE by stepping out of the real world into this actual world, as this flesh and blood body, leaving your ‘self’ behind where ‘you’ belong. 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. Also, where is it written about? Could you provide me with a list of book-titles? Some URL’s perhaps. • [Respondent]: ‘ But it has its value in that at least you are describing it enough to establish some communication. • [Respondent]: ‘*Good ... perhaps we can get down to business?* [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 25d, 20 September 1999). What rank 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 20 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the fifty-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: [...] It mayhap that you would care to rethink your perhaps hasty conclusion? [...] That question came from an off-topic exchange about technical problems due to differing email clients – Outlook, Netscape, Eudora etcetera – hence it has not been archived on Richard’s portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site until now. Here is that (rhetorical) 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 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). (Richard, List B, No. 10a, 30 September 1999). (...) • [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 ‘very little is lost by the absence of multi-colour’. • [Respondent No. 05]: ‘Do you actually see your multi-coloured submissions as having some kind of aesthetic merit worthy of defence? • [Richard]: ‘Aesthetic merit is in the eye of the beholder … you cannot legislate for good taste. • [Respondent No. 05]: ‘Or do you perhaps feel the vacuousness of your pompous prose requires graphic enhancements acting as camouflage via visual distraction? • [Richard]: ‘As any sophomore worthy of their salt should know, this type of argumentation falls under the general category of ‘The Fallacy of Complex Question’ – sometimes known as ‘The Fallacy of Loaded Question’ (as in ‘have you stopped beating your wife/husband yet’) – and, as such, cannot be answered in any meaningful way. • [Respondent No. 05]: ‘The above is the most ridiculous ‘apples and oranges’ analogy I’ve read in at least a year. Congratulations! • [Richard]: ‘*It mayhap that you would care to rethink your perhaps hasty conclusion?* [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 5a, 30 September 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 19 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the fifty-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: [...] as you seem to do you have browbeat them into compliance. [...] As that quote makes no grammatical sense a closer inspection reveals that it is actually a stitched-together composite formed by extracting two part-sentences from two different responses to two different assertions. Again, they came from an off-topic exchange about technical problems due to differing email clients – Outlook, Netscape, Eudora etcetera – hence it has not been archived on Richard’s portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site until now. Here are those two 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. 05]: ‘Some folks’ values don’t include sending a functioning PC to a landfill or stuffing their hard drives with tens of megabytes of Micro$soft bloatware in order to accommodate the enormous ego of a single contributor to a single mailing list. • [Richard]: ‘Speaking personally, I do not ‘send a functioning PC to a landfill’ … whatever gave you that notion? Nor do I have any political agenda about Mr. Bill Gates’ abundant wealth – *as you seem to do* – that makes me prejudiced. • [Respondent No. 05]: ‘Of well over 400 participants in the several mailing lists to which I subscribe you are the only one who insists on fancy submissions. • [Richard]: ‘Presumably they (a) do not appreciate colour, italics, bold, underlining, justifying and so on … or (b) *you have browbeat them into compliance.* Also, as any sophomore worthy of their salt should know, this type of argumentation falls under the general category of ‘The Fallacy of Consensus Gentium’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 5a, 30 September 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 – that lowercase word ‘you’ has been capitalised. Viz.: From: Charlie Bragg Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 9:34 PM To: actualfreedom@listbot.com Subject: Disrespect Richard wrote: [...] You have browbeat them into compliance. as you seem to do [...] 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 lowercase word ‘you’ capitalised. Viz.: From: xan xuereb Date: Sun Oct 24 2004 - 04:34:47 AEST To: actualfreedom@topica.com Subject: Strange blindness Richard wrote: [...] You have browbeat them into compliance. as you seem to do [...] What kind of personeity is it who would doctor a previously undoctored word (‘you’) into a doctored word (”You”) only to then insist that the excerpts were precisely copied and pasted? Here is a useful word: fibster (n.): person who tells fibs (=‘lies’); a petty liar. ~ (Oxford English Dictionary). There are 18 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the fifty-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: [...] I did not ‘react negatively’ whether you approve or disapprove is besides the point. [...] As that quote makes no grammatical sense a closer inspection reveals that it is actually a stitched-together composite formed by extracting two part-sentences from different parts of a paragraph. And again, they came from an off-topic exchange about technical problems due to differing email clients – Outlook, Netscape, Eudora etcetera – hence it has not been archived on Richard’s portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site until now. Here are those two 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. 05]: ‘Do you actually see your multi-coloured submissions as having some kind of aesthetic merit worthy of defence? • [Richard]: ‘Aesthetic merit is in the eye of the beholder … you cannot legislate for good taste. (...) • [Respondent No. 05]: ‘Of well over 400 participants in the several mailing lists to which I subscribe you are the only one who insists on fancy submissions. • [Richard]: ‘Presumably they (a) do not appreciate colour, italics, bold, underlining, justifying and so on … or (b) you have browbeat them into compliance. Also, as any sophomore worthy of their salt should know, this type of argumentation falls under the general category of ‘The Fallacy of Consensus Gentium’. • [Respondent No. 05]: ‘And also the only one to react negatively to the suggestion that it might be a good idea (not to mention good manners) to use plain text instead. • [Richard]: ‘*I did not ‘react negatively’* … I responded with positive suggestions as to how to keep up with the times. HTML is here to stay, *whether you approve or disapprove is besides the point.* As for your somewhat desperate appeal to ‘good manners’, all I can say is that I am glad that I am not your children. Not only are you setting yourself up to be the arbiter of ‘good taste’ … but ‘good manners’ as well’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 5a, 30 September 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 17 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the fifty-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: [...] As for your somewhat desperate appeal to ‘good manners’, Must be all that ‘intrinsic morality’ (internalised Talmudic injunctions) that has sapped your intelligence, eh? [...] As that quote makes no grammatical sense a closer inspection (the capitalised word ‘Must’ after a comma for example) reveals that it is actually a stitched-together composite formed by extracting a part-sentence and a full-sentence from different parts of a paragraph. And once again, they came from an off-topic exchange about technical problems due to differing email clients – Outlook, Netscape, Eudora etcetera – hence it has not been archived on Richard’s portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site until now. Here is that part-sentence, and the full-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 No. 05]: ‘Do you actually see your multi-coloured submissions as having some kind of aesthetic merit worthy of defence? • [Richard]: ‘Aesthetic merit is in the eye of the beholder … you cannot legislate for good taste. (...) • [Respondent No. 05]: ‘Of well over 400 participants in the several mailing lists to which I subscribe you are the only one who insists on fancy submissions. • [Richard]: ‘Presumably they (a) do not appreciate colour, italics, bold, underlining, justifying and so on … or (b) you have browbeat them into compliance. Also, as any sophomore worthy of their salt should know, this type of argumentation falls under the general category of ‘The Fallacy of Consensus Gentium’. • [Respondent No. 05]: ‘And also the only one to react negatively to the suggestion that it might be a good idea (not to mention good manners) to use plain text instead. • [Richard]: ‘I did not ‘react negatively’ … I responded with positive suggestions as to how to keep up with the times. HTML is here to stay, whether you approve or disapprove is besides the point. *As for your somewhat desperate appeal to ‘good manners’,* all I can say is that I am glad that I am not your children. Not only are you setting yourself up to be the arbiter of ‘good taste’ … but ‘good manners’ as well. *Must be all that ‘intrinsic morality’ (internalised Talmudic injunctions) that has sapped your intelligence, eh?* [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 5a, 30 September 1999). A background note is in order here: the reference to ‘intrinsic morality’ being a matter of ‘internalised Talmudic injunctions’ is in regards to that particular co-respondent making quite an issue about that very subject, on more than a few occasions, and that droll comment relates to the absurdity of maintaining that (a) there is an ‘intrinsic morality’ and (b) it comprises of ‘internalised Talmudic injunctions’ (their wording). To explain: if that co-respondent had been a Buddhist, for instance, then presumably they would have been asserting that (a) there is an ‘intrinsic morality’ and (b) it comprises of ‘internalised Buddhistic injunctions’. 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 – that parenthesised phrase had been excised from the sentence. Viz.: From: Charlie Bragg Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 9:34 PM To: actualfreedom@listbot.com Subject: Disrespect Richard wrote: [...] Must be all that ‘intrinsic morality’ that has sapped your intelligence, eh? [...] 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 parenthesised phrase excised. Viz.: From: xan xuereb Date: Sun Oct 24 2004 - 04:34:47 AEST To: actualfreedom@topica.com Subject: Strange blindness Richard wrote: [...] Must be all that ‘intrinsic morality’ that has sapped your intelligence, eh? [...] As a matter of related interest, though, ‘Sock Puppet Neemyth’ is convinced Richard totally defeated and/or destroyed Respondent No. 05 in these online exchanges. Viz.: Re: NondualitySalon Subject: Good-Bye Brahman ((- From: ‘neemyth’ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 [Anonymous]: For my part, I am content in the knowledge the lowest rung on the ladder to God (read Absolute) is far above the pinnacle of anyone’s self-assertion. [Respondent No. 05]: True enough, but what of that which is not knowledge, not merely stored data? [Anonymous]: Such as?? [Respondent No. 05]: Since it’s not knowledge, it can’t be stated directly [this ‘it’=an unspeakable ladder to God] – and taking a hint or pointing toward it is not for the faint of heart or the loud of mouth [this ‘it’=an indescribable path to Truth] – that’s why it can’t be taught [sic; ‘Truth is a pathless land’]. [Neemyth]: Lame Brain! [Respondent No. 05]: My God, the wit – I’m cut to the quick! :-) [Neemyth]: Richard made mince meet out of you and I loved minute of it. [Respondent No. 05]: Which minute was it that you ‘loved’? [Neemyth]: Slurp :-) Avoiding him like the plague now days I see. Mmm? And sticking to the trivia you know most about. [Respondent No. 05]: Knowledge is not even remotely at issue. I’m not sure who Richard is, so I don’t know how I could be avoiding him. [Neemyth]: You fucking LIAR. [Respondent No. 05]: The only Richard I remember contending with on-line is a verbose blowhard up to his ears in knowledge – much more eloquent than you and much more thoroughly deluded too. Then again, if you think that particular Richard ’made mince meet’ out of me (or anyone else, for that matter), he may well have some serious competition in the delusion department. [Neemyth]: And I bet you don’t remember me either? [Respondent No. 05]: Hell no, vacuous bull-artists are indistinguishable from each other in print. The only way to tell you from ‘Robarts’ is that your spelling and grammar are worse – and I’m supposed to remember you? Don’t flatter yourself, kiddo. [Neemyth]: Don’t waste my fuckin’ time, prick. Be that as it may, just what type of personificator is it who would insist that [quote] “the excerpts were precisely copied and pasted” [endquote] when the parenthesised words ‘internalised Talmudic injunctions’ have demonstrably been excised from versions two and three? Here is a useful phrase (albeit jocular): • terminological inexactitude: (euphemism, jocular), a falsehood (=‘a fictitious statement; a lie; untruthful speaking; lying’). ~ (Oxford English Dictionary). There are 16 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the fifty-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: [...] Goodness me ... there is no end then it would appear that you have a problem This type of indoctrination is insidious. [...] As that quote makes no grammatical sense a closer inspection (the capitalised word ‘This’ after the word ‘problem’ for example) reveals that it is actually a stitched-together composite formed by extracting three part-sentences from three different responses to three different replies. And, again, they came from an off-topic exchange about technical problems due to differing email clients – Outlook, Netscape, Eudora etcetera – hence it has not been archived on Richard’s portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site until now. Here are those three 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. 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) ...’. (Richard, List B, No. 10a, 30 September 1999). • [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 ‘very little is lost by the absence of multi-colour’. 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 ‘this also helps to keep down’ pollution ‘and thus conserves’ resources). *Goodness me … there is no end* to the things we could revert to, given that ‘very little is lost by the absence of [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 ‘quite a few users with older equipment’ who ‘can’t read anything other than plain text’ 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 ‘other than plain text’. • [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. • [Richard]: ‘Each to his/her own. • [Respondent No. 05]: ‘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? • [Respondent No. 05]: ‘Even such venerable institutions as the New York Times send their e-mails in plain text on request. • [Richard]: ‘Oh I see … ‘venerable institutions’, eh? You know, for all of your rhetoric to No. 21 and No. 23 … you show yourself to be rather old-fashioned and conservative when push comes to shove. • [Respondent No. 05]: ‘If you care about your readers you will do the same. • [Richard]: ‘Once again … I am glad I am not your children. *This type of indoctrination is insidious.* • [Respondent No. 05]: ‘And save the graphical and typographic enhancements for the World Wide Web, where they belong. • [Richard]: ‘Who are you to decide where ‘graphical and typographic enhancements’ belong? Is this an example of how ‘intrinsic morality’ (internalised Talmudic injunctions) operates in the world? [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 5a, 30 September 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 15 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the fifty-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: [...] Who are you to decide? [...] This is another part-question (with the last six words snipped off) from the off-topic exchange about technical problems due to differing email clients – Outlook, Netscape, Eudora etcetera – hence it has not been archived on Richard’s portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site until now. 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 No. 05]: ‘Even such venerable institutions as the New York Times send their e-mails in plain text on request. • [Richard]: ‘Oh I see … ‘venerable institutions’, eh? You know, for all of your rhetoric to No. 21 and No. 23 … you show yourself to be rather old-fashioned and conservative when push comes to shove. • [Respondent No. 05]: ‘If you care about your readers you will do the same. • [Richard]: ‘Once again … I am glad I am not your children. This type of indoctrination is insidious. • [Respondent No. 05]: ‘And save the graphical and typographic enhancements for the World Wide Web, where they belong. • [Richard]: ‘*Who are you to decide* where ‘graphical and typographic enhancements’ belong? Is this an example of how ‘intrinsic morality’ (internalised Talmudic injunctions) operates in the world? [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 5a, 30 September 1999). What utter 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 14 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the sixtieth 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: [...] As I already explained What on earth! [...] As that quote makes no grammatical sense a closer inspection (the capitalised word ‘What’ after the word ‘explained’ for example) reveals that it is actually a stitched-together composite formed by extracting a part-sentence and a part-question from two different responses to two different replies and replace the question mark with an exclamation mark. They also came from the off-topic exchange about technical problems due to differing email clients – Outlook, Netscape, Eudora etcetera – hence it has not been archived on Richard’s portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site until now. Here is that part-sentence and 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 30 1999. Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘But in the meanwhile, those ‘quite a few users with older equipment’ who ‘can’t read anything other than plain text’ 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 ‘other than plain text’. Speaking personally, I ran ‘Outlook Express’ (available free) on an older 75Mhz machine quite successfully before spending the cash on the full ‘Outlook 2000’ when I up-graded the hardware. In my experience, those who complain the most are still doggedly sticking to an earlier ‘nineties freebie (like ‘Eudora Lite’ or some-such programme) and refusing to come into the ’noughties (where all is bright and colourful). • [Respondent No. 05]: ‘Not to mention entirely superfluous to written correspondence. • [Richard]: ‘*As I already explained* in my previous post almost all enhancements are superfluous … yet decorative effects are appreciated around the world; across cultural divides; down through history and by both gender … unless one has a dour purview on life and seeks to impose that mindset upon others. • [Respondent No. 05]: ‘I can’t believe that even someone as richly deluded as you would bother posting such abjectly inane advice. • [Richard]: ‘*What on earth* is ‘inane’ about providing a FREE solution to the problem? Are you for real? [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 5a, 30 September 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 13 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the sixty-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: [...] I ask you! [...] Not only has that quote has been doctored it has now been twice-doctored – it has already appeared as Quote No. 34 in the form of [quote] “Now I ask you!” [endquote] – inasmuch the word ”Now” has been excised (along with an added exclamation mark taking the place of a colon in the original and the remaining eight words of that question snipped off). Here, once again, 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 September 1999). What class of personifier is it who would re-doctor a previously doctored quote (which already had an added exclamation mark taking the place of a colon in the original and the remaining eight words of that question snipped off) 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: • foolish (adj.): lacking good sense or judgement; indicative of or proceeding from folly; ridiculous. ~ (Oxford English Dictionary). There are 12 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the sixty-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: [...] Are you for real? [...] This quote also came from the off-topic exchange about technical problems due to differing email clients – Outlook, Netscape, Eudora etcetera – hence it has not been archived on Richard’s portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site until now. Here it is, 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]: ‘But in the meanwhile, those ‘quite a few users with older equipment’ who ‘can’t read anything other than plain text’ 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 ‘other than plain text’. Speaking personally, I ran ‘Outlook Express’ (available free) on an older 75Mhz machine quite successfully before spending the cash on the full ‘Outlook 2000’ when I up-graded the hardware. In my experience, those who complain the most are still doggedly sticking to an earlier ‘nineties freebie (like ‘Eudora Lite’ or some-such programme) and refusing to come into the ‘noughties (where all is bright and colourful). • [Respondent No. 05]: ‘Not to mention entirely superfluous to written correspondence. • [Richard]: ‘As I already explained in my previous post almost all enhancements are superfluous … yet decorative effects are appreciated around the world; across cultural divides; down through history and by both gender … unless one has a dour purview on life and seeks to impose that mindset upon others. • [Respondent No. 05]: ‘I can’t believe that even someone as richly deluded as you would bother posting such abjectly inane advice. • [Richard]: ‘What on earth is ‘inane’ about providing a FREE solution to the problem? *Are you for real?* [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 5a, 30 September 1999). What out-and-out 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 11 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the sixty-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: [...] ... and then get I told that I am arrogant! [...] This quote is a repeat of the grammatically incorrect one – the four consecutive words ”then get I told” are nonsensical – already presented (Quote No. 50) and is a doctored version of an already doctored quote which has previously appeared as Quote No. 36 (and also 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 fourth 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 September 1999) It is unqualifiedly bizarre how 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 10 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the sixty-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: [...] if that is what you get off on May I ask? Is that what all this is for you ... you are, once again, building a case on a deliberate lie ‘This is just crazy And it is not only my observation If this does not convince you Do you ever read what I write ‘Golly ... I am not sure how to proceed now and here was I being under the impression that you were just plain stupid that is how inadequate I found you to be just what game you are playing with me? [...] As that quote makes no grammatical sense whatsoever it is obviously a jumbled-up stitched-together composite formed by extracting twelve part-sentences/ part-questions from two different emails written to two different co-respondents on two different days ... to wit: Respondent No. 05 (September 30 1999) and Respondent No. 17 (September 28 1999). This first part-question came from the off-topic exchange about technical problems due to differing email clients – Outlook, Netscape, Eudora etcetera – hence it has not been archived on Richard’s portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site until now. Here it is, 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]: ‘But in the meanwhile, those ‘quite a few users with older equipment’ who ‘can’t read anything other than plain text’ 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 ‘other than plain text’. (...) • [Respondent No. 05]: ‘I can’t believe that even someone as richly deluded as you would bother posting such abjectly inane advice. • [Richard]: ‘What on earth is ‘inane’ about providing a FREE solution to the problem? Are you for real? • [Respondent No. 05]: ‘Even a colour TV broadcast can be viewed on a monochrome receiver, and Internet e-mail is far earlier in its infancy than TV was when colour transmissions commenced. All told, I’d rate your comments as typically and superfluously ‘colourful’ but not too ‘bright’ at all. • [Richard]: ‘You may rate my comments as much as you like, *if that is what you get off on*, but I am inspired to ask: are you a school-teacher by profession, perchance? If so, have you never heard that adage about remembering which hat one is wearing? [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 5a, 30 September 1999). The second question/ part-question came from the same off-topic exchange ... here it is, 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. 05]: ‘You are more of an ass on more levels than anyone I’ve encountered on this list – and that includes some rather formidable competition I can assure you. • [Richard]: ‘May I ask? Is that what all this is for you … a competition? [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 5a, 30 September 1999). 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 28 1999. Viz.: • [Respondent No. 12]: ‘Stare at the finger (the words) and what is pointed to is missed. • [Konrad]: ‘What you do here is making a distinction between the words and the meaning of them, and making a big deal out of this, which it isn’t. In effect you are putting something forward that everybody knows as if it is a very deep wisdom. A trick that Richard is also very good at. The difference with you and with him is, that he has redefined the ordinary into a complete system of new terms, like actualism, and PCE, etc. In comparison with him you are a complete amateur. I suggest, study him thoroughly, and you might become aware of your own confusion by understanding his. • [Richard]: ‘I see in this paragraph that *you are, once again, building a case on a deliberate lie*. Viz.: [Konrad]: ‘a trick that Richard is ... very good at ... is that he has redefined the ordinary into a complete system of new terms, like actualism, and PCE, etc.’ [endquote]. We have discussed this propensity of yours to build an hypothesis from a false premise before ... back in the days when you would talk to me directly rather than casting incorrect allusions about me and what I say in your writing to others. Viz.: [snip quoted exchange]. Now I ask you: where have I redefined the word ‘actualism’, eh?’ [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 17b, 28 September 1999). Here is the fourth 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 28 1999. Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘I see in this paragraph that you are, once again, building a case on a deliberate lie. Viz.: [Konrad]: ‘a trick that Richard is ... very good at ... is that he has redefined the ordinary into a complete system of new terms, like actualism, and PCE, etc.’ [endquote]. We have discussed this propensity of yours to build an hypothesis from a false premise before ... back in the days when you would talk to me directly rather than casting incorrect allusions about me and what I say in your writing to others. Viz.: [snip quoted exchange]. Now I ask you: where have I redefined the word ‘actualism’, eh? As for PCE (pure consciousness experience). Viz.: [Konrad]: ‘... there is no such thing as a PCE’. [Richard]: *‘This is just crazy* ... everyone I have ever questioned has reported at least one PCE in their life. Usually more than one ... and they can last from as little as one-two seconds to several hours. One person (a woman) I spoke with had it last all afternoon and night, finally going to sleep at 2.00 AM ... only to find it still happening upon waking. It gradually diminished during the course of the morning. And it is not only my observation ... many are the accounts I have read of this ... the subject is currently being discussed around the world in the fields of academia. It comes up in the new study (of the last fifteen years or so) called ‘Consciousness Studies’. This is where I obtained the phrase ‘PCE’ from ... I had called it a ‘Peak Experience’ (after Mr. Abraham Maslow) until then. Oh, there are many, many websites discussing the nature of consciousness itself ... one such site is called ‘The Journal Of Consciousness Studies’ and operates out of Cambridge University in the UK ... if my memory serves me correct. Their URL is ...’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 17b, 28 September 1999). Here is the fifth 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 28 1999. Viz.: • [Konrad]: ‘... there is no such thing as a PCE’. • [Richard]: ‘This is just crazy ... everyone I have ever questioned has reported at least one PCE in their life. Usually more than one ... and they can last from as little as one-two seconds to several hours. One person (a woman) I spoke with had it last all afternoon and night, finally going to sleep at 2.00 AM ... only to find it still happening upon waking. It gradually diminished during the course of the morning. *And it is not only my observation* ... many are the accounts I have read of this ... the subject is currently being discussed around the world in the fields of academia. It comes up in the new study (of the last fifteen years or so) called ‘Consciousness Studies’. This is where I obtained the phrase ‘PCE’ from ... I had called it a ‘Peak Experience’ (after Mr. Abraham Maslow) until then. Oh, there are many, many websites discussing the nature of consciousness itself ... one such site is called ‘The Journal Of Consciousness Studies’ and operates out of Cambridge University in the UK ... if my memory serves me correct. Their URL is [snip link]’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 17b, 28 September 1999). Here is the sixth 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 28 1999. Viz.: • [Konrad]: ‘... there is no such thing as a PCE’. • [Richard]: ‘This is just crazy ... everyone I have ever questioned has reported at least one PCE in their life. Usually more than one ... and they can last from as little as one-two seconds to several hours. One person (a woman) I spoke with had it last all afternoon and night, finally going to sleep at 2.00 AM ... only to find it still happening upon waking. It gradually diminished during the course of the morning. And it is not only my observation ... many are the accounts I have read of this ... the subject is currently being discussed around the world in the fields of academia. It comes up in the new study (of the last fifteen years or so) called ‘Consciousness Studies’. This is where I obtained the phrase ‘PCE’ from ... I had called it a ‘Peak Experience’ (after Mr. Abraham Maslow) until then. Oh, there are many, many websites discussing the nature of consciousness itself ... one such site is called ‘The Journal Of Consciousness Studies’ and operates out of Cambridge University in the UK ... if my memory serves me correct. Their URL is [snip link]’. *If this does not convince you* then another example can be found in a paper called ‘What does Mysticism have to Teach us About Consciousness?’ where Mr. Robert Forman says: [snip quote]. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 17b, 28 September 1999). Here is the seventh 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 28 1999. Viz.: • [Konrad]: ‘... you are incapable of seeing that this insight [that there is no identity to eliminate because no ‘I’ separate from thought exists], this understanding, is correct. Since this understanding is basic for enlightenment, in fact is its igniter, your claim that you have moved to something beyond it is clearly false. • [Richard]: ‘Not so, Konrad ... I understood the implications of understanding this insight very well indeed. In fact, I have detailed this self-same matter to you before. Viz.: [snip 250-word quote]. I also have detailed the actualisation of this insight to you before as well. Viz.: [snip 496-word quote]. I have also detailed the actual moment of this actualisation of the insight to you before. Viz.: [snip 407-word quote]. I must ask, at this point: *Do you ever read what I write* and send to you? • [Konrad]: ‘To be honest, sometimes I am sloppy about this’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 17b, 28 September 1999). Here is the eighth 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 28 1999. Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘I must ask, at this point: Do you ever read what I write and send to you? • [Konrad]: ‘To be honest, sometimes I am sloppy about this • [Richard]: ‘*Golly, Konrad ... I am not sure how to proceed now* ... because I write to you with the full knowledge of what I have already written to you ... mistakenly assuming that you are following all this and engaging in a two-way dialogue with me. This explains why you do not understand what is being talked about ...’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 17b, 28 September 1999). Here is the ninth 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 28 1999. Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘I must ask, at this point: Do you ever read what I write and send to you? • [Konrad]: ‘To be honest, sometimes I am sloppy about this • [Richard]: ‘Golly, Konrad ... I am not sure how to proceed now ... because I write to you with the full knowledge of what I have already written to you ... mistakenly assuming that you are following all this and engaging in a two-way dialogue with me. This explains why you do not understand what is being talked about ... *and here was I being under the impression that you were* either not good with words or were undiscerning ...’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 17b, 28 September 1999). Here is the tenth 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 28 1999. Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘I must ask, at this point: Do you ever read what I write and send to you? • [Konrad]: ‘To be honest, sometimes I am sloppy about this • [Richard]: ‘Golly, Konrad ... I am not sure how to proceed now ... because I write to you with the full knowledge of what I have already written to you ... mistakenly assuming that you are following all this and engaging in a two-way dialogue with me. This explains why you do not understand what is being talked about ... and here was I being under the impression that you were either not good with words or were undiscerning ... even *just plain stupid*’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 17b, 28 September 1999). Here is the eleventh 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 28 1999. Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘I must ask, at this point: Do you ever read what I write and send to you? • [Konrad]: ‘To be honest, sometimes I am sloppy about this • [Richard]: ‘Golly, Konrad ... I am not sure how to proceed now ... because I write to you with the full knowledge of what I have already written to you ... mistakenly assuming that you are following all this and engaging in a two-way dialogue with me. This explains why you do not understand what is being talked about ... and here was I being under the impression that you were either not good with words or were undiscerning ...even just plain stupid. I even failed to see how you could possibly be teaching logic as a profession ... *that is how inadequate I found you to be* in your replies’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 17b, 28 September 1999). Here is the twelfth 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 28 1999. Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘I must ask, at this point: Do you ever read what I write and send to you? • [Konrad]: ‘To be honest, sometimes I am sloppy about this • [Richard]: ‘Golly, Konrad ... I am not sure how to proceed now ... because I write to you with the full knowledge of what I have already written to you ... mistakenly assuming that you are following all this and engaging in a two-way dialogue with me. This explains why you do not understand what is being talked about ... and here was I being under the impression that you were either not good with words or were undiscerning ...even just plain stupid. I even failed to see how you could possibly be teaching logic as a profession ... that is how inadequate I found you to be in your replies. So ... now we know why this correspondence flounders and I find myself endlessly repeating ground already covered. But ... I have to ask *just what game you are playing with me?* Because ... how do I know whether you are going to read all that which I have just written above? If you do not read that, then you are just going to go on accusing me of not understanding you ... these things I write are essential to a mutual understanding. Speaking personally, I read everything you write because I need to know where you are coming from in order to respond accurately. No wonder there has been so much misunderstanding on your part’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 17b, 28 September 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 9 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the sixty-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: [...] am I to pretend that I do not already know it just to please you? [...] 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 28 1999. Viz.: • [Respondent No. 12]: ‘Stare at the finger (the words) and what is pointed to is missed. • [Konrad]: ‘What you do here is making a distinction between the words and the meaning of them, and making a big deal out of this, which it isn’t. In effect you are putting something forward that everybody knows as if it is a very deep wisdom. A trick that Richard is also very good at. The difference with you and with him is, that he has redefined the ordinary into a complete system of new terms, like actualism, and PCE, etc. In comparison with him you are a complete amateur. I suggest, study him thoroughly, and you might become aware of your own confusion by understanding his. • [Richard]: ‘I see in this paragraph that you are, once again, building a case on a deliberate lie. Viz.: [Konrad]: ‘a trick that Richard is ... very good at ... is that he has redefined the ordinary into a complete system of new terms, like actualism, and PCE, etc.’ [endquote]. We have discussed this propensity of yours to build an hypothesis from a false premise before ... back in the days when you would talk to me directly ... • [Konrad]: ‘Yes, I was talking to you directly. But you did not return the favour. You just tried to hammer your ‘actualism’ in me, without any investigation in what I brought forward. You may protest against this. For didn’t you go extensively into what I said? Yes, you did. But not with an attempt to investigate what it was, exactly, what I was getting at, but from the biased assumption that everything I put forward is something you either already knew ... • [Richard]: ‘If someone puts something forward that I have already heard about, read about or discovered for myself, *am I to pretend that I do not already know it just to please you?* • [Konrad]: ‘... or from the assumption that it was wrong ... • [Richard]: ‘If something is incorrect it is incorrect ... thus it is not, then, an assumption. • [Konrad]: ‘... and then trying to gather evidence for this assumption of yours. • [Richard]: ‘This is a prime example of a false premise’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 17b, 28 September 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 ‘am’ has been capitalised as if to appear to be a full question (rather than just the last fifteen words of a thirty-two word question). Viz.: From: Charlie Bragg Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 9:34 PM To: actualfreedom@listbot.com Subject: Disrespect Richard wrote: [...] Am I to pretend that I do not already know it just to please you? [...] 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 same capitalisation as in version two. Viz.: From: xan xuereb Date: Sun Oct 24 2004 - 04:34:47 AEST To: actualfreedom@topica.com Subject: Strange blindness Richard wrote: [...] Am I to pretend that I do not already know it just to please you? [...] What sort of personage is it who would insist that [quote] “the excerpts were precisely copied and pasted” [endquote] when such a minor thing as the capitalisation of one single letter, showing that version two and three are demonstrably different to version one, puts the lie to that insistence? Here is a useful word: • a congenital liar/ congenital dishonesty (n.): inveterate, dyed-in-the-wool, thorough going, utter, complete, ingrained. ~ (Oxford English Dictionary). There are 8 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the sixty-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: [...] This is a prime example of a false premise. [...] 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 28 1999. Viz.: • [Respondent No. 12]: ‘Stare at the finger (the words) and what is pointed to is missed. • [Konrad]: ‘What you do here is making a distinction between the words and the meaning of them, and making a big deal out of this, which it isn’t. In effect you are putting something forward that everybody knows as if it is a very deep wisdom. A trick that Richard is also very good at. The difference with you and with him is, that he has redefined the ordinary into a complete system of new terms, like actualism, and PCE, etc. In comparison with him you are a complete amateur. I suggest, study him thoroughly, and you might become aware of your own confusion by understanding his. • [Richard]: ‘I see in this paragraph that you are, once again, building a case on a deliberate lie. Viz.: [Konrad]: ‘a trick that Richard is ... very good at ... is that he has redefined the ordinary into a complete system of new terms, like actualism, and PCE, etc.’ [endquote]. We have discussed this propensity of yours to build an hypothesis from a false premise before ... back in the days when you would talk to me directly ... • [Konrad]: ‘Yes, I was talking to you directly. But you did not return the favour. You just tried to hammer your ‘actualism’ in me, without any investigation in what I brought forward. You may protest against this. For didn’t you go extensively into what I said? Yes, you did. But not with an attempt to investigate what it was, exactly, what I was getting at, but from the biased assumption that everything I put forward is something you either already knew ... • [Richard]: ‘If someone puts something forward that I have already heard about, read about or discovered for myself, am I to pretend that I do not already know it just to please you? • [Konrad]: ‘... or from the assumption that it was wrong ... • [Richard]: ‘If something is incorrect it is incorrect ... thus it is not, then, an assumption. • [Konrad]: ‘... and then trying to gather evidence for this assumption of yours. • [Richard]: ‘*This is a prime example of a false premise*’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 17b, 28 September 1999). What unmitigated 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 7 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the sixty-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: [...] If so, then this erroneous ‘seeing’ becomes your next false premise. [...] 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 28 1999. Viz.: • [Respondent No. 12]: ‘Stare at the finger (the words) and what is pointed to is missed. • [Konrad]: ‘What you do here is making a distinction between the words and the meaning of them, and making a big deal out of this, which it isn’t. In effect you are putting something forward that everybody knows as if it is a very deep wisdom. A trick that Richard is also very good at. The difference with you and with him is, that he has redefined the ordinary into a complete system of new terms, like actualism, and PCE, etc. In comparison with him you are a complete amateur. I suggest, study him thoroughly, and you might become aware of your own confusion by understanding his. • [Richard]: ‘I see in this paragraph that you are, once again, building a case on a deliberate lie. Viz.: [Konrad]: ‘a trick that Richard is ... very good at ... is that he has redefined the ordinary into a complete system of new terms, like actualism, and PCE, etc.’ [endquote]. We have discussed this propensity of yours to build an hypothesis from a false premise before ... back in the days when you would talk to me directly ... • [Konrad]: ‘Yes, I was talking to you directly. But you did not return the favour. You just tried to hammer your ‘actualism’ in me, without any investigation in what I brought forward. You may protest against this. For didn’t you go extensively into what I said? Yes, you did. But not with an attempt to investigate what it was, exactly, what I was getting at, but from the biased assumption that everything I put forward is something you either already knew ... • [Richard]: ‘If someone puts something forward that I have already heard about, read about or discovered for myself, am I to pretend that I do not already know it just to please you? • [Konrad]: ‘... or from the assumption that it was wrong ... • [Richard]: ‘If something is incorrect it is incorrect ... thus it is not, then, an assumption. • [Konrad]: ‘... and then trying to gather evidence for this assumption of yours. • [Richard]: ‘This is a prime example of a false premise’. • [Konrad]: ‘When we communicated, I did my very best to understand your position, up to experimenting with what you put forward. But when I began to see, that your evaluation of ‘the process’ was wrong ... • [Richard]: ‘Did it occur to you that the reverse may also hold true? *If so, then this erroneous ‘seeing’ becomes your next false premise.* • [Konrad]: ‘... and therefore your claim, that your condition is something beyond enlightenment was made by somebody who did not really know what he was talking about, you made every communication impossible. • [Richard]: ‘Yet if the premise is incorrect then this conclusion is erroneous’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 17b, 28 September 1999). What stark 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 6 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the sixty-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: [...] How do you see this as being a worthwhile thing? [...] 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 30 1999. Viz.: • [Respondent]: ‘Any person who picks up a weapon with the intent to kill another has a fundamental character flaw. It does not matter what they do to justify their action, if they place a higher value on their own life than on another they have a character flaw (...) People with true ‘character’ do not kill one another, for whatever reason, period. If I were placed in such a situation ... I guess my character would be found lacking. • [Richard]: ‘I have condensed your statements for clarity (amend my digest if I left anything crucial out) for I am intrigued by your reasoning. Given that the discussion is in the context of an armed aggressor poised at that split-second prior to killing you – who therefore has [quote] ‘a fundamental character flaw’ [endquote] – you are suggesting that only if you had ‘a fundamental character flaw’ would you kill them so as to not be killed yourself. And your justification for this stance is that a person with [quote] ‘true character’ [endquote] does not [quote] ‘place a higher value on their own life than on another’ [endquote] even when (in this scenario) that other person clearly and unambiguously has ‘a fundamental character flaw’ in themselves and you the recipient does not ... as evidenced by your now-dead body lying next to the weapon that you did not [quote] ‘pick up with the intent to kill another’ [endquote]. Could you confirm (or alter as appropriate) my summary of your rationale before I continue? Also, are you in accord with the dictionary definition of the word ‘value’? [Oxford Dictionary]: ‘value: a thing regarded as worth having; the worth, usefulness, or importance of a thing; relative merit or status according to the estimated desirability or utility of a thing; estimate or opinion of, regard or liking for, a person or thing; the principles or moral standards of a person or social group; the judgement of what is valuable and important in life; the quality of a thing considered in respect of its ability to serve a specified purpose or cause an effect’. (from Latin: valere; ‘be strong’, ‘be worth’). I only ask what the word ‘value’ signifies to you because you do seem to be saying that it be of some kind of important value that those people with a [quote] ‘true character’ [endquote] get to be killed by the bully-boys and feisty-femmes of the world on a predictably regular basis. (Under your system, people of ‘true character’ would rapidly go on to the endangered species list – via your process of ‘unnatural selection’ the human race will steadily deteriorate – and the people with ‘a fundamental character flaw’ thus get to perpetuate the human species). Given that those people with ‘a fundamental character flaw’ in themselves get to set the character of future generations, my question is: *How do you see this as being a worthwhile thing?* (And a follow-up question: Why do you wish it upon the children of the future that they be born of parents with ‘a fundamental character flaw’?) [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 36, 30 September 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 5 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the sixty-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: [...] you are talking to deaf ears which is more than I can say for you Whoa up there! [...] As that quote makes no grammatical sense a closer inspection (the capitalised word ‘Whoa’ after the word ‘you’ for example) reveals that it is actually a stitched-together composite formed by extracting three part-sentences from three different emails written to two different co-respondents on two different days ... to wit: Respondent No. 38 (September 29 1999) and Respondent No. 17 (September 28 1999). Here is that 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 29 1999. Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘When ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul psychologically and psychically self-immolate – which is the end of ‘being’ itself – then the answer to the ‘Mystery Of Life’ becomes evident as an on-going existential experiencing; I am this physical universe experiencing itself as a reflective, sensate human being; as me, the universe is intelligent (there is no anthropomorphic ‘Intelligence’ that is creating or running existence). • [Respondent]: ‘Would you not say a tree or an animal or our solar system are put together remarkably and intelligently? • [Richard]: ‘Remarkably ... yes. Intelligently ... no. • [Respondent]: ‘I wonder what you mean by ‘intelligently’. • [Richard]: ‘I mean the same thing as the dictionary definition of intelligence. (Oxford Dictionary): ‘The faculty of understanding; intellect; quickness or superiority of understanding, sagacity; the action or fact of understanding something; knowledge, comprehension (of something)’. Therefore, I cannot see how ‘a tree or an animal or our solar system’ are ‘put together’ by ‘something’ that only has the faculty of understanding (as in intellect) which has the quickness or superiority of understanding (as in sagacity) and the capacity for the action or fact of understanding (as in knowledge and/or comprehension of something). It takes something much, much more than intelligence ... intelligence cannot comprehend infinity and eternity, just for starters. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti said many a time that he could not comprehend infinity and eternity ... even though the ‘supreme intelligence’ was operating in him and would not be manifesting for ‘many hundred of years’! So whether it is the ‘supreme intelligence’ of metaphysical fancy or the genuine article – human intelligence – as neither can comprehend infinity and eternity, it takes something much, much more than intelligence to manifest in itself ‘a tree or an animal or our solar system’ or whatever this universe will be discovered to be manifesting in itself as more and more exploration occurs in the future. • [Respondent]: ‘I call it intelligent when the things one needs are effectively created/discovered. For example, an intelligent design in my programs allows me to do things in the future with my architectures that no one has even thought of yet. Well, a tree very intelligently gathers the energy of sunlight, gathers water, etc. All the things it needs are either available in plentiful supply, or are intelligently gathered by the tree. Perhaps you have a special meaning for the word ‘intelligent’? Perhaps you mean only human-style intelligence. • [Richard]: ‘Are you saying that there is some other ‘style’ of intelligence than the only one discovered so far? Where is it? When was it discovered? Has it been verified as different from and superior to the only intelligence there has been so far? Or are you referring to that anthropocentric projection that is known on this Mailing List as ‘that supreme intelligence’ or ‘that which is sacred, holy’ or ‘that which is timeless, spaceless and formless’ and so on? If so, *you are talking to deaf ears* ... I have no religiosity, spirituality, mysticality or metaphysicality in me whatsoever. I lived that hallucination as a reality for eleven years and found it wanting ... thus I am not open to even consider anything ‘sacred’ or ‘holy’ or ‘divine’ and so on for even one second’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 38, 29 September 1999). And here is that 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 28 1999. Viz.: • [Respondent No. 12]: ‘Stare at the finger (the words) and what is pointed to is missed. • [Konrad]: ‘What you do here is making a distinction between the words and the meaning of them, and making a big deal out of this, which it isn’t. In effect you are putting something forward that everybody knows as if it is a very deep wisdom. A trick that Richard is also very good at. The difference with you and with him is, that he has redefined the ordinary into a complete system of new terms, like actualism, and PCE, etc. In comparison with him you are a complete amateur. I suggest, study him thoroughly, and you might become aware of your own confusion by understanding his. • [Richard]: ‘I see in this paragraph that you are, once again, building a case on a deliberate lie. Viz.: [Konrad]: ‘a trick that Richard is ... very good at ... is that he has redefined the ordinary into a complete system of new terms, like actualism, and PCE, etc.’ [endquote]. We have discussed this propensity of yours to build an hypothesis from a false premise before ... back in the days when you would talk to me directly ... • [Konrad]: ‘Yes, I was talking to you directly. But you did not return the favour. You just tried to hammer your ‘actualism’ in me, without any investigation in what I brought forward. You may protest against this. For didn’t you go extensively into what I said? Yes, you did. But not with an attempt to investigate what it was, exactly, what I was getting at, but from the biased assumption that everything I put forward is something you either already knew ... • [Richard]: ‘If someone puts something forward that I have already heard about, read about or discovered for myself, am I to pretend that I do not already know it just to please you? • [Konrad]: ‘... or from the assumption that it was wrong ... • [Richard]: ‘If something is incorrect it is incorrect ... thus it is not, then, an assumption. • [Konrad]: ‘... and then trying to gather evidence for this assumption of yours. • [Richard]: ‘This is a prime example of a false premise. • [Konrad]: ‘This does not qualify for a honest dialogue. • [Richard]: ‘This is an example of an erroneous conclusion drawn from the false premise. • [Konrad]: ‘When we communicated, I did my very best to understand your position, up to experimenting with what you put forward. But when I began to see, that your evaluation of ‘the process’ was wrong ... • [Richard]: ‘Did it occur to you that the reverse may also hold true? If so, then this erroneous ‘seeing’ becomes your next false premise. • [Konrad]: ‘... and therefore your claim, that your condition is something beyond enlightenment was made by somebody who did not really know what he was talking about, you made every communication impossible. • [Richard]: ‘Yet if the premise is incorrect then this conclusion is erroneous. • [Konrad]: ‘The only thing you could do was cling to your precious actualism ... • [Richard]: ‘An erroneous conclusion leads to erroneous speculation. • [Konrad]: ‘... instead of really (in your words actually) investigating whether there might be something in what I put forward. • [Richard]: ‘I examined every one of your words and concepts carefully ... *which is more than I can say for you*. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘Up until now Konrad, I have read, and done my best to understand, every word of your correspondence with Richard – something you do not appear to do with other’s correspondence with you’. [Konrad]: ‘Would you like to read endless explanations of somebody explaining astrology to you, or the cabala? Would you like to read endless explanations of somebody who tells you about his encounter with Martians? As soon as people begin to describe things that contradict things I KNOW, I have the natural tendency to stop reading’. [endquote]. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 17b, 28 September 1999b). Plus here is that 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 28 1999. Viz.: • [Respondent No. 12]: ‘Stare at the finger (the words) and what is pointed to is missed. • [Konrad]: ‘What you do here is making a distinction between the words and the meaning of them, and making a big deal out of this, which it isn’t. In effect you are putting something forward that everybody knows as if it is a very deep wisdom. A trick that Richard is also very good at. The difference with you and with him is, that he has redefined the ordinary into a complete system of new terms, like actualism, and PCE, etc. In comparison with him you are a complete amateur. I suggest, study him thoroughly, and you might become aware of your own confusion by understanding his. • [Richard]: ‘I see in this paragraph that you are, once again, building a case on a deliberate lie: [Konrad]: ”a trick that Richard is ... very good at ... is that he has redefined the ordinary into a complete system of new terms, like actualism, and PCE, etc”. We have discussed this propensity of yours to build an hypothesis from a false premise before back in the days when you would talk to me directly rather than casting incorrect allusions about me and what I say in your writing to others. • [Konrad]: ‘You see? You dismiss everything I put forward beforehand. How do you know that I am wrong, if you do not investigate the position from which I make those statements? • [Richard]: ‘Yet I do investigate ... I read everything you write and consider carefully. • [Konrad]: ‘How can you be certain, that it is not you, but it is I that is making the mistake? • [Richard]: ‘The facts speak for themselves ... and not your theories that change from day-to-day (and sometimes in the same E-Mail). • [Konrad]: ‘Let me mention one thing that is clearly your mistake, and that has blocked every communication between us two. (I have tried to make you aware that you are capable of making mistakes, by that number of 160.000.000, that was my last attempt to make clear to you that you are able to make mistakes. For without you admitting that you are able to make mistakes, I cannot make you aware of making this particular mistake. THAT was the intent. And you have missed even that.) • [Richard]: ‘*Whoa up there*, Konrad ... it was you who was in error with this example. You acknowledged so yourself. Viz.: [Konrad]: ‘I will not bother to read your last mail. For you STILL have not proved to me, that you can admit to errors’. [Richard]: ‘But where is the error? ... I watched the BBC ‘Hard Talk’ interview with Mr Robert McNamara (US Secretary for Defence during the Vietnam War) one night. He estimated that 160,000,000 people have been killed in wars this century ... The International ‘War Child Organisation’ estimate the figure to be a conservative 60,000,000 ... it would appear that the amount lies somewhere between 60,000,000 and 160,000,000 ... which is nowhere near to the total that you are trying to brow-beat me into using. Where do you get your figure of 1.600,000,000 from? Will you provide a table of statistics to demonstrate where you are correct and I am in error?’ [Konrad]: ‘Okay, Richard, so it is a maximum of 160.000.000’. [endquote]. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 17b, 28 September 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 exclamatory words Whoa up there!” had been removed from that quote, appended to an entirely different one, and the word ‘you’ had been capitalised ... plus the two part-sentences have been separated into two distinct quotes. Viz.: From: Charlie Bragg Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 9:34” PM To: actualfreedom@listbot.com Subject: Disrespect Richard wrote: [...] You are talking to deaf ears which is more than I can say for you Whoa up there! all that is being discussed is a trivial and obvious point. [...] 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 same changes made to it as in version two. Viz.: From: xan xuereb Date: Sun Oct 24 2004 - 04:34:47 AEST To: actualfreedom@topica.com Subject: Strange blindness Richard wrote: [...] You are talking to deaf ears which is more than I can say for you Whoa up there! all that is being discussed is a trivial and obvious point. [...] At this juncture it is once 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 October 2004). Yet the (supposedly) precisely copied and pasted excerpt [quote] “you are talking to deaf ears which is more than I can say for you Whoa up there!” [endquote] is nowhere to be found in versions two and three. But what is in versions two and three is the (supposedly) precisely copied and pasted excerpt [quote] “Whoa up there! all that is being discussed is a trivial and obvious point” [endquote]. Therefore, it is once more undeniably obvious that ‘Sock Puppet Ron’ is a liar. • liar (n.): a person who has lied or who lies repeatedly; (synonyms): prevaricator; beguiler, cheater, deceiver, trickster, slicker, cheat (=‘someone who leads you to believe something that is not true’); false witness, perjurer (=‘a person who deliberately gives false testimony’); fabricator, fibber, storyteller (=‘someone who tells lies’); (antonyms): truth-teller; square shooter, straight arrow, straight shooter (=‘a frank and honest person’). ~ (Princeton’s WordNet 3.0). There are 4 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the seventieth 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 a tumult of junk all that is being discussed is a trivial and obvious point. [...] First of all, and not surprisingly, the last eleven words are the exact-same ones as appeared in the (supposedly) precisely copied and pasted excerpt [quote] “Whoa up there! all that is being discussed is a trivial and obvious point” [endquote] in versions two and three. Second, an observation Richard made, in a follow-up email on October 28 2004 after demonstrating how some of the quotes had been doctored so as to impute passion/emotion, is well worth repeating here. Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘... the more that certain persons doctor and/or misrepresent my words and/or read things into them which are simply not there, and so forth, in order to find fault the more they demonstrate that what I do report/ describe/ explain is indeed actual/ factual and, thus, irrefutable (else why resort to it). As such a sterling PR service for actualism is being provided ... gratis’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 48, 28 October 2004). Anyway, as that seventieth quote makes no grammatical sense a closer inspection reveals that it is actually a stitched-together composite formed by extracting two part-sentences from two different emails written to two different co-respondents on two different days ... to wit: Respondent No. 38 (September 29 1999) and Respondent No. 17 (September 28 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 29 1999. Viz.: • [Respondent]: ‘I guess I am a little more curious about what is possible. For example, telepathy seems totally possible by using short-wave radio and some kind of tool that creates sub-vocalisation in the brain. But I’d really like to study how perception occurs at all, and how different kinds of perception occur. It may be that we could create an entirely different sense, just for receiving the transmitted thoughts of others. And I’d like to include facilities for encryption and authentication. • [Richard]: ‘Hmm ... given the thoughts expressed by most peoples I talk to represent but the tip of the iceberg in regard to the totality of their thoughts, then I would rather screen them out than have a new sense that receives them. *What a tumult of junk* one would be subject to ... and the fact that you would seek the ‘facilities for encryption and authentication’ shows that you may be of similar persuasion’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 38, 29 September 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 28 1999. Viz.: • [Konrad]: ‘Principles do not contain information. They are rules, that tell how to evaluate information, but they are themselves devoid of any informational content. • [Respondent No. 25]: ‘Could you provide a simple example? • [Konrad]: ‘Okay. Let us take an ethical principle, like ‘thou shalt not kill’. Does it tell that no killing is going on? No, of course not. Then does it tell, that killing IS going on? Again, the answer is: no. What, then, does it tell about the world? If you think about it, it says NOTHING about the world, nor about the human beings in it. Therefore, because it says nothing in terms of what is, or what is happening, it does not contain any information. • [Richard]: ‘Sometimes it is helpful to take a less-emotive example so as to be able to see with the clarity that the absence of a vested interest brings. I would propose the ubiquitous ‘Keep Of The Grass’ injunction, to be found in Public Parks and Gardens anywhere I have been in the world, as being a suitable example. The information implicit in the command is (a) that people have been and are currently prone to be walking/lying/sitting/running/jumping/and in all other ways conceivable doing things on the grass; (b) that unless such a sign is displayed they will continue to do so; (c) that such activity is considered (by some people) as being detrimental to what the grass is for; (c) that what the grass is for is a visual effect (look but do not touch); (d) that other peoples allegedly more thoughtful than the average park user (the ‘authorities’) have considered the implications and ramifications and/or had experience of an ‘user knows best’ approach to grass usage and are directing a different usage; (e) that some (unnamed) penalty will be incurred for transgressions (an order is pointless if not enforced); (f) that such penalty-enforcers have the biggest guns (the requisite ‘might is right’ force) necessary to back-up the order ‘Keep Off The Grass’; (g) that the average park-user can read (is at least somewhat educated) and therefore has a socialised concept of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ (implicit in the education process) and also in that there are no armed guards standing next to the sign for on-the-spot active retaliation of infringements ... and ... well (a) to (g) is just for starters. Therefore, contrary to what you say (above) I cannot comprehend that the injunction is devoid of informational content. It seems to be loaded with information. Anyway, the injunction ‘thou shalt not kill’ implicitly provides the information that there is (and has been) killing going on ... or else there would be no need for the commandment in the first place. • [Konrad]: ‘But this does NOT mean, that the ethical principle has no meaning. The meaning this principle has is as a criterion of evaluation. What it says, is that WHEN killing is going on, you should condemn it. And when somebody stops killing, you should welcome it. This ethical principle is therefore something to use to EVALUATE facts, but, as an ethical principle, it is ITSELF not a fact. • [Richard]: ‘Likewise I cannot comprehend that contained in the injunction is the evaluative meaning in that one should condemn walking etc. on the grass and that one should welcome abstaining from doing so ... it may only imply that other peoples with the requisite ‘might is right’ force (those with the biggest guns) have decided it be so. In fact, the use of brute force to enable the so-called desired result shows that the evaluative power of the principle is not universal after all ... and may only reflect the dominant group’s particular mind-set. If what you are saying is that a principle does not provide particular information about precisely what is going on – where, when, how and by who – then I agree. But if that were to be the case, as there is the hourly news up-dates to do that, then *all that is being discussed is a trivial and obvious point*. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 17b, 28 September 1999d). A note to clarify: as there has been so much text presented, above, a short summation is in order, here, so that there be no confusion as to what occurred. First of all, in 1999 ‘Sock Puppet Skye’ copy-pasted three snippets from three different emails to two different people on two different days. Viz.: 1. ‘If so, *you are talking to deaf ears* ... I have no religiosity, spirituality, mysticality or metaphysicality in me whatsoever...’. 2. ‘I examined every one of your words and concepts carefully ... *which is more than I can say for you*. Viz.:..’. 3. ‘*Whoa up there*, Konrad ... it was you who was in error with this example. You acknowledged so yourself. Viz.:..’. Second, ‘Sock Puppet Skye’ arranged those three snippets into a stitched-together sentence ... and added an exclamation mark to the end. Viz.: • ‘you are talking to deaf ears which is more than I can say for you Whoa up there!’ Third, ‘Sock Puppet Skye’ copy-pasted two snippets from two different emails to two different people on two different days. Viz.: 4. ‘I would rather screen them out than have a new sense that receives them. *What a tumult of junk* one would be subject to...’. 5. ‘But if that were to be the case, as there is the hourly news up-dates to do that, then *all that is being discussed is a trivial and obvious point*...’. Fourth, ‘Sock Puppet Skye’ arranged those two snippets into a stitched-together sentence. Viz.: • ‘What a tumult of junk all that is being discussed is a trivial and obvious point’. Fifth, in 2001 ‘Sock Puppet Chaz’ rearranged those two (supposedly genuine) quotes, capitalised the word ‘you’, and posted them looking like this: • What a tumult of junk • You are talking to deaf ears • which is more than I can say for you • Whoa up there! all that is being discussed is a trivial and obvious point. Sixth, in 2004 ‘Sock Puppet Ron’ posted the previously rearranged and capitalised version (which ‘Sock Puppet Chaz’ had fashioned out of the stitched-together sentence that ‘Sock Puppet Skye’ had created) and yet insisted that they 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 October 2004). Thus, it is again undeniably obvious that ‘Sock Puppet Ron’ is a liar. • a liar is not believed (even) when they tell the truth (proverb): if people think someone is a liar, they will not believe anything they say; [e.g.]: ‘As it turned out, he was right when he warned his friends the police were planning to raid their party; but they paid no attention to him, since they knew him to be a liar, and a liar is not believed even when he tells the truth’. ~ (McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs). There are 3 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the seventy-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: [...] ... and then get I told that I am arrogant! [...] This quote is a yet another repeat of the grammatically incorrect one – the four consecutive words ”then get I told” are nonsensical – already presented (Quote No. 50) and is a doctored version of an already doctored quote which has previously appeared as Quote No. 36 (and also 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 fifth 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 September 1999). What ilk of personality is it who would repeatedly paste in a doctored/re-doctored (and grammatically incorrect) snippet and then re-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: • negligent (adj.): failing to take proper, necessary, or reasonable care; (synonyms) lax, careless, inattentive, heedless, thoughtless, unmindful, uncaring, cursory, slack, sloppy, slapdash, slipshod. ~ (Oxford English Dictionary). There are 2 more (unreferenced) lines of quotes ... here is the seventy-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 am this infinite and eternal universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being ... [...] 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 24 1999. Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘All sentient beings are born with instinctual passions like fear and aggression and nurture and desire genetically bestowed by blind nature which give rise to a rudimentary animal ‘self’ – which is ‘being’ itself – that human beings with their ability to think and reflect upon their mortality have transformed into a ‘me’ as soul (a ‘feeler’ in the heart) and an ‘I’ as ego (a ‘thinker’ in the head). • [Respondent]: ‘Where did these things come from? • [Richard]: ‘Matter is perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in a multiplicity of forms • [Respondent]: ‘This is an especially pertinent question in view of what you say later, namely that you are the sensations you experience and nothing else. • [Richard]: ‘*I am this infinite and eternal universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being ...* and this is marvellous’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 38, 24 September 1999). What rank 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 is 1 more (unreferenced) line of quotes ... here is the seventy-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: [...] RICHARD: [quote] Speaking personally, I think with the same words that I communicate with ... it is so much easier. Of course, if they believe my words to be false they close the door on their own freedom from the human condition. There is none so contumacious as a self-righteous soul who is convinced that they know the way to live. I am inspired to ask: are you a school-teacher by profession, perchance? If so, have you never heard that adage about remembering which hat one is wearing? To live this is what service is. You have a long, long way to go before you can even begin to understand what freedom means. It is all rather cute, is it not? [unquote]. [...] Although that is presented as if it be one continuous quote – enclosed by the scholarly quote-unquote convention to convey exactly that – it is actually a stitched-together composite comprised as follows: 1. The first sentence is to Respondent No. 03 (September 29 1999) ... written four days after the next one. 2. The second sentence is to Respondent No. 36 (September 25 1999) ... written four days before the first one. 3. The third (part) question is to Respondent No. 36 (September 25 1999) ... thirteen words have been snipped off its end. 4. The fourth (part) question is to Respondent No. 05 (September 30 1999) ... nineteen words snipped from its beginning. 5. The fifth sentence is to Respondent No. 05 (September 30 1999) ... written one day after the next one. 6. The sixth sentence is to Respondent No. 25 (September 29 1999) ... written one day before the previous one. 7. The seventh (part) sentence is to Respondent No. 36 (September 25 1999) ... sixteen words snipped and ‘you’ capitalised. 8. The eighth question is to Respondent No. 38 (September 29 1999) ... written the day before the fourth one. Here is that 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 29 1999. Viz.: • [Respondent]: ‘Language is what we make it, both the language of words, gestures, eye contact, feeling, reflecting and the ‘ancient/lost’ pre-language (could be called knowing – which may be stored ‘in the unconscious domain’?) do you know? • [Richard]: ‘It may be true for some people – or maybe many – that ‘language is what we make it’ but once words get out of the private domain (thought) into the public domain (communicating with one’s fellow humans) there is the necessity for some basic agreement as to what a word signifies. *Speaking personally, I think with the same words that I communicate with ... it is so much easier.* As for the ‘unconscious domain’ ... that is the stuff of metaphysics (where anything can mean nothing and nothing can mean anything). I have no ‘unconscious domain’ whatsoever’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 03, 29 September 1999). Here is the second 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]: ‘Just what does your 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. • [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. 38, 29 September 1999). 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 25 1999. Viz.: • [Respondent]: ‘I was asking what part in YOU is wanting to go beyond. • [Richard]: ‘It would seem that there is a mix-up as to timing and the sequence of events. Briefly, in 1981, ‘I’ as ego went beyond normal (ego death) resulting in the abnormal state; in 1992 ‘me’ as soul went beyond abnormal (soul death) resulting in the third alternative ... which I choose to call an actual freedom. All I want now is for my fellow human beings to become free of the human condition themselves ... this is my sole reason for writing. You see, peace-on-earth is already always here – here in this actual world – and no one needs to invent it. It is all a matter of entering into it; making it apparent; allowing it to emerge; watching it unfold ... or whatever description. Everyone is either rushing about trying to make an imitation peace ... or sitting back moaning and groaning about the inequity of it all. I did not devise, concoct or contrive this peace-on-earth ... it is already always here – as it already has been and always will be – as we live in a perfect universe. I discovered it, that is all ... and it being so perfect that I wished to inform my fellow human beings of its existence. What they do with this information is their business. Because none of this matters much when one is already living in the actual world. In an actual freedom, life is experienced as being perfect as-it-is. One knows that one is living in a beneficent universe ... and that is what actually counts. The self-imposed iniquities that ail the people, who stubbornly wish to remain denizens of the real world, fail to impinge upon the blitheness and benignity of one who lives in the vast scheme of things. The universe does not force anyone to be happy and harmless, to live in peace and ease, to be free of sorrow and malice. It is a matter of personal choice as to which way one will travel. Humans, being as they are, will probably continue to tread the ‘Tried and True’ paths, little realising that they are the tried and failed ways. *There is none so contumacious as a self-righteous soul who is convinced that they know the way to live* ... as revealed in their ancient and revered sacred scriptures and cherished secular philosophies. So be it’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 36, 25 September 1999). Incidentally, the word ‘contumacious’ is used here, as elsewhere, in its ‘stubbornly perverse’ Oxford Dictionary meaning. Here is the fourth part-question and the fifth 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.: • [Richard]: ‘But in the meanwhile, those ‘quite a few users with older equipment’ who ‘can’t read anything other than plain text’ 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 ‘other than plain text’. (...) • [Respondent No. 05]: ‘I can’t believe that even someone as richly deluded as you would bother posting such abjectly inane advice. • [Richard]: ‘What on earth is ‘inane’ about providing a FREE solution to the problem? Are you for real? • [Respondent No. 05]: ‘Even a colour TV broadcast can be viewed on a monochrome receiver, and Internet e-mail is far earlier in its infancy than TV was when colour transmissions commenced. All told, I’d rate your comments as typically and superfluously ‘colourful’ but not too ‘bright’ at all. • [Richard]: ‘You may rate my comments as much as you like, if that is what you get off on, but *I am inspired to ask: are you a school-teacher by profession, perchance? If so, have you never heard that adage about remembering which hat one is wearing?* [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 5a, 30 September 1999). Here is the sixth 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 29 1999. Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘What is essential to success is to precipitate pure consciousness experiences (they are your personal verification that this is not all a matter of belief, trust, faith and hope) and they are your ‘guide’, your ‘teacher’, your ‘authority’ and so on ... not me. • [Respondent]: ‘Thank you for the response Richard. I appreciate what you have written, and I have just one question about something you have said: of what possible service can you be given that the PCE itself is my guide – and not you? (I ask this since it occurs as a human question timelessly worthy of clarification and not to subject you to undue resistance). • [Richard]: ‘The PCE is the inerrant lodestone: all I have ever wanted is that the words and writings of an actual freedom from the human condition should exist in the world as a third alternative ... for anyone to avail themselves of if it be in accord with their own experience and/or aspirations. As such it is an affirmation that such experience is not only valid but a confirmation in that a fellow human being has traversed this territory in an eminently satisfactory way. For eighteen years I scoured the books ... to no avail. Now the information exists – and has taken on a life of its own – and I am well content and having so much fun. I offer tips, hints, suggestions, clues, inside information, anecdotal stories and so on. What the other does with it all is entirely up to them. In the final analysis only you get to live your life and only you have amenability ... it is you who reaps the rewards or pays the consequences for any action or inaction that you may or may not do. And it is the report and the description of my experiencing that is important, not me. Anyone who has met me face-to-face only gets verification that there actually is a flesh and blood body that lives what these words say ... there is no ‘energy-field’ here. In fact, the written word is better as I tend to skip important detail with the spoken word ... this computer generates all my stock-standard phrases in an instant. As for service: the reward for going to the very end of illusion and delusion is to emerge, unscathed, as the actual. The benefits of doing so are beyond price; to remove oneself from the invidious position of being betwixt sycophants and traducers, being one among many. The immediate bestowal of universal peace upon oneself is the benefit worthiest of acknowledgment. Yet, rewards and benefits notwithstanding, to have reached one’s destiny is to be of the ultimate service possible ... the universe has been able to fulfil itself in a human being. Finally there is an intelligence operating unimpeded ... blind nature has been superseded. *To live this is what service is*’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 25d, 29 September 1999). Here is the seventh 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]: ‘If I follow what you have said, you are intelligence and the senses. I do not think that the senses have wants, are you saying that intelligence has wants? • [Richard]: ‘I am this physical (sensate and reflective flesh and blood body) being apperceptively aware: with no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul lurking around inside this body stuffing up the works, then this body’s intelligence can operate freely. As it is silly to have to have locks on the doors and bars on the windows and judges and juries and gaols and police forces and military forces and customs officers and so on and so on all maintaining a semblance of law and order at the point of a gun when we could all be living together in peace and harmony then yes, ‘that intelligence has wants’ ... and very sensible, reasonable and practical wants. This kind of thinking and reasoning is what intelligence is very good at when not crippled by ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ and ‘my’ precious feelings. If you are going to object to peace-on-earth just because [quote] ‘that intelligence has wants’ [endquote] ... then *you have a long, long way to go before you can even begin to understand what freedom means*’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 36, 25 September 1999). Here is the eighth 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 29 1999. Viz.: • [Respondent]: ‘It seems that almost everything of any real importance has been handled /for/ me, since before I was born! • [Richard]: ‘Yes ... we live in a veritable playground. All that is required is to enjoy and appreciate being here each moment again. • [Respondent]: ‘The question is, for those who don’t presently see it that way, how can their point of view be changed so they do? (Assuming they want that.) • [Richard]: ‘Yes ... and your [quote] ‘assuming they want that’ [endquote] proviso is all that stands in the way of peace on earth. Which means no more wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides. *It is all rather cute, is it not?*. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 38, 29 September 1999). There is no way to describe the calculated public presentation of that mish-mash of mixed quotes other than as being deceitfulness of the highest order. To fraudulently present a hodgepodge of sentences/ part-sentences and questions/ part-questions, taken from responses to five different respondents on three different days and in a different chronological order (as if it be one continuous quote), is undeniably the work of an utterly dishonest persona resorting to almost any trickery and deception possible in order to vilify the discoverer of the long-sought breakthrough in human experience which brings to an end all the anger and anguish, all the misery and mayhem, which epitomises the human condition. (It is obvious their goal all this while has been to stop the global spread of peace-on-earth dead in its tracks – via disseminating all manner of made-up stuff about Richard – since they first began some 24+ years ago in October 1999). Such deviousness, such duplicity, can only be the work of a very, very sick person. PostScript: In the beginning of May 2009 Richard responded to the posts from the sock-puppeteer which prompted the above quote-by-quote confutation. However, the exposé triggered by the ‘middle-aged codger’ event of May 09, 2009, rendered the publishment of this detailed response redundant – in something akin to a panicked frenzy of activity ‘Skye-Belle’, a 53-year-old cross-dresser immediately deleted Richard’s ‘middle-aged-codger’ emails and all of their own (vituperatory) posts and decamped tout-de-suite – and thus this detailed response has languished amidst other unpublished material, on an external hard-drive and other back-up media for these last fourteen years, and is now being published for the first time. Being such a tangled tissue of spin and/or bull – in stark contrast to rapportage – their vituperative modus operandi necessitated a line-by-line or point-by-point exposé which can found at the following link. Viz.: [https://www.actualfreedom.com.au/sundry/factsandgroupthink/sock-puppeteer-still-getting-mileage-from-doctored-snippets.htm]. (opens in new window). RETURN TO FACTS AND GROUPTHINK INDEX RICHARD’S HOME PAGE ACTUAL FREEDOM HOMEPAGE The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one. Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997- . All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity