On Aug 23, 8:24 pm, CFA wrote:
> EHWollmann PMAFA wrote:
> >On Aug 23, 2:28 pm, CFA AKA Ken Kizer who is fearful of archiving his
> >less than thought out assertions wrote:
> You can get over this any time you want to. Every time you or Kettler
> replies, my words are archived. Who cares anyway? It's usenet.
There is nothing to get over, that is my point, it is not me who needs
to get over anything. Like the Cheryl Merrill garbage, I am assuming
this was another attempt to try to embarass me for some imagined
slight by someone like Steve Burnett's site. Yet, I do not tell the
true story of Shari Lockwood or post her 7 years of home video with my
family etc. which would be very embarassing for her and her family. I
guess I am expected to spend money to take the libelous websites to
court or whatever--I just let them go. And yet if I did go to court on
any of these issues the opponents would be completely destroyed,
because as it works out always, what they try to spin as some serious
fault of mine ends up being some frivolous thing--Lindsey Lohan has
more of a criminal record than me for crying out loud! And all I ever
came here to do was to discuss subjects of interest to me!
> >> E H Wollmann wrote:
> >> >On Aug 22, 9:30 pm, CFA wrote:
> >> >> E. H. Wollmann - The One Who Rules wrote:
> And what would possess one to write the above- and not be joking?
Not sure what you are referring to so I cannot comment.
> >> >> >On Aug 19, 3:13 pm, CFA wrote:
> >> >> >> JB wrote:
> >> >> >> > <sigh> You DO realise, of course, that any "Readings" you
giv=
e have a
> >> >> >> >2.000 year distention, right? If they have ANY benifit at ALL
-=
they'd
> >> >> >> >be accurate 2.000 years ago, not now. Precession and all that.
=
All, I
> >> >> >> >mean ALL of your meanderings are predicated on falsehoods.
Chok=
e on it.
> >> >> >> Precession isn't the problem with astrology.
> >> >> >but astrologers who lack critical thinking skills...
> >> >> As if you had the slightest clue what I meant.
> >> >Alright, explain then. I thought Ptolemy explained it very well.
Most
> >> >non-astrologers come up with these infantile arguments that evidence
> >> >only their lack of astrological understanding, not any real
criticism
> >> >of astrology--or astrologers.
> >> The problem with astrology, as with any other model of existence, is
> >> the limitation of human understanding. A model isn't existence. In
Nor is "living" a science, and yet astrologers all over the world are
intmidated by people screaming "scientific tests being needed" etc.
while the religious nutbars only need old books written by illiterate
religious leaders and pedophile priests from thousands of years ago to
kill people, change laws, and try to direct the world stage! Stop
being intmidated folks! You see these religious nuts (who should by
necessity be embarassed of their idiocy) FORCING themselves on
politicians and lobbying them, and politicians caving! Anything that
can be applied can BE DEMONSTRATED without necessarily haveing
scientific tests to prove them.
> >> addition, our ability to interpret such dense models as astrology is
> >> severely hampered by subjectivity and lack of experience.
> >> >> >Who believe in fairy tales
> >> >> Such as?
> >> >That people have "massive aspect networks" etc. as you have
described
> >> >that "make them" act in such and such a way or that "brings things
> >> >upon them" in a karmic way, or other such limited mindless
judgmental
> >> >thinking patterns.
> >> If you don't take massive aspect complexes into account, what's the
> >> point in delineating them?
> >To determine the extent to which the owner has developed them,
> >surpassed them or has under-recognized them as an unconscious pattern?
> Right. Basic stuff.
> >One cannot delineate that without their own resolutions and awareness
> >being clear and firm.
This part is essential to your other argument.
> >> However, I've never said those aspects make people act a certain way.
> >> I will say chart signatures describe the line of least resistance,
but
> >> people are free to behave however they choose.
> >Chart signatures "outline" the probable development--and conflicts
> >possible on the way to that knowingness--as an archetypal dimension or
> >"path-set" chosen on some level by the owner in question. Resistance
> >to anything regarding that development brings pain and difficulty in
> >the experiences of that outline.
> That's how it looks to me.
> >This is the key point, posters,
> >astrologers and psychologists who debate me fail to recognize in our
> >interactions and then perceive all sorts of things having nothing to
> >do with me.
> If you assert that's how it works for others, then that's how it works
> for you. And those exchanges in which you refuse to accept your part
> are still projections of your mind, too.
NO, that is what you are not getting! Indigenous peoples who believe
an airplane going overhead is a product of their gods and beliefs as a
bad sign or whatever, are NOT EQUAL to a modern well educated pilot in
the plane who knows otherwise! NO ONE CAN INTERPRET A LIFE OR A LEVEL
AT WHICH THEY THEMSELVES HAVE NOT OR CANNOT FUNCTION. You and other
posters only get PART of my teachings of reality creation, and this is
why you get tripped up in argument. Because you THINK (arrogantly so)
that you have a firm understanding of the principles when you DON'T. I
cannot accept responsibility for others beliefs or actions, I can only
be responsible TO THEM by being all that I can be. If I see beyond
where they do, all I can do is let it go and let them go their own
way--it DOES NOT MEAN, there is any problem with me or that their
bull**** is mine.
> >> And if you'd read very many of my posts to others, you might have
> >> actually noticed how much flack I get for talking about personal
> >> responsibility/no victims. I'm at least as radical about that as you.
I do not see that as radical but realistic. But you must not accept
responsibility for others FAILINGS either. It takes DISCERNMENT to
tell the difference, and although you deny it, you would be well
served to read my book more carefully--you and others, because your
zeal blinds yo to truths you THINK you already know but do not. And
whether I missed the spelling or proper use of a word in my book (for
reasons I cannot go into here for hurrying it out to be published) is
IRRELEVANT.
> >> What's mildly interesting is how you then deny it when I apply it to
> >> you- when I say that your experiences here- and responses to your
> >> posts- are a projection of your inner landscape.
> >> Is that enough personal power for you?
Not sure what you mean by this.
> >> >> > and that they are not destined by their own choices.
> >> >> Put down the mirror.
> >> >> Ken
> >> >Gee, I wrote a whole book other astrologers are afraid to
acknowledge
> >> >that PROVES we create our reality, why would a mirror be needed for
> >> >me?
> >> I'm not sure I'd call it 'afraid to acknowledge'. I'd say it's not
> >> particularly interesting to me for various reasons... I've long ago
> >> adopted the most im****tant parts of your philosophies, so it would be
> >> more like a review.
> >Long ago. I see, arrogance. The problem with you and the other
> >"enlightened ones" who come here over the years is how diligently you
> >seek to attach me to the infantile behavior of some bored usenet geeks
> It couldn't just be that I know something about the material.
Not in this case, because post by post I will demonstrate that you do
not know as much as you like to think you do. Or are not as practiced
at it as you think.
> >and their obsessive behavior as having something to do with my
> >consciousness
> If you engage it- and you do- it's in your world. If it's in your
> world, it's part of your belief system, whether you think you want it
> there or not.
WRONG! Bush is NOT A PART of my belief system, but has much to do with
my world, like it or not.You don't get it, we are either a part of the
solution or a part of the problem, not always a "cause" of the issues
at hand. Yes, the vibration you are will be the reality you
experience, but I denounced Bush the night they announced he stole the
election, whilst the populace gave him 90% approval ratings after 9/11
when they were duped into believing the BU****. I did not. THAT proved
that I was not a part of that issue or that reality, but those duped
WERE responsible for that reality. Although we were all a part of the
SAME reality that I still saw--comprende??? I had NO ISSUE with that
reality and hence was not duped, even though I could still see it and
experience the results from it. On a collective level I may be a part
of that reality, but the part I played HAD NOTHING TO DO with the
belief systems that created it. So your statement above is flat WRONG!
This is what the abusers keep doing, saying that because I stated that
a person is a part of a reality system--it does not follow that that
they are RESPONSIBLE for it. Or the negativity perpetrated by others.
I WILL NOT ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR OTHERS.
> You've always had the choice to simply not respond. I've noticed
> you've been unable to do so.
I CHOOSE not to do so.
> >(and you joining in with them to be socially accepted),
> Some old whine, same old bull****.
Anyone who participated in trying to denigrate and defame me because I
kicked their ass either in argument or by yanking their account
rightfully was WRONG, period. I remain STANDING, using my own name and
identity proudly and still in integrity.
> Do you sup****t everything Exxon does? Do you use their gas?
No I don't.
> >at the same time acting as if my perceived "arrogance" and
> >****headedness has 0 to do with your consciousness.
> When did I say that?
The day you ignored the facts and tried to run me down for ego
purposes.
> >Fortunately I am far more diligent and aware
> lol.
Defense.
> >and remain as YOUR
> >stubborn mirror in the hopes that one or two of you will actually get
> >it over time.
> I typically don't argue with you about philosophies. It's usually
> about style. I don't know what is so hard to understand about that.
I understand more than you give me credit for--you and all who post!
> >It is the exact same lack of awareness and judgmentalism numbness the
> >US right wing has with its christian zealots as being the co-creators
> >of the "muslim extremists" and acting as if they have no clue where it
> >is coming from, and make up all sorts of silly notions such as "they
> >hate our freedom" and garbage like that as the reason for the
> >conflicts and attacks.
> You nailed the christian right, but you still don't know my purpose
> here.
Calling me an arrogant ****head gives me a pretty good clue.
> >The insults about my writing--which has nothing to do with whether
> >someone could be served or not by it--have been snipped and ignored.
> It's universal feedback from your environment- even the book review
> that so annoyed you said the same thing.
Einstein was laughed at for 19 years before it was acknowledged that
what he was saying was valid, I do NOT accept your argument. The book
has already been edited for grammatical or insignificant errors--it
STILL SAYS THE SAME THING!
> It's arrogance to think a comment about improving your book could only
> be an insult.
I was born at noon, not YESTERDAY noon.
> Ken
"Like a dog that returns to its vomit-is a fool who reverts to his
folly. Do you see persons wise in their own eyes? There is more hope
for
fools than for them." Proverbs 26:11,12
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
=A9 2007 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
The Sun http://www.edmondwollmann.com/
Articles http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/info.htm
Artworks http://www.e-wollmann.com/TOC.htm
|
