EHWollmann PMAFA wrote:
>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.
Then why keep pounding on the fact I don't allow archiving of my
posts?
If I was really afraid of archiving my thoughts, I wouldn't post to
usenet at all.
>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!
All that is your beef with other people. I don't bring that stuff up,
and don't really care what your history off usenet is or isn't. I do,
however, find it odd we know so much about your personal life, but you
revealed much of that information yourself.
>> >> 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.
"The One Who Rules". In the context of aa, that would seem
unnecessarily inflammatory, and for what purpose?
>> >> >> >On Aug 19, 3:13 pm, CFA wrote:
>> >> >> >> JB wrote:
>> >> >> >> > <sigh> You DO realise, of course, that any "Readings" you
give 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.
Choke 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!
That's not my point.
>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.
That's not my point, either.
>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.
Unless you get into a pissing match with them. Defense equals some
attempt at denial, which is an indication there's *some* doubt. You've
pointed out more than once, IIRC, that truth needs no defense.
>> >> 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.
I'd agree, but in comparison...
>But you must not accept
>responsibility for others FAILINGS either.
it really has nothing to do with others at all. It's about the
projection.
>It takes DISCERNMENT to tell the difference,
It's simply about what goes on in your world.
>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.
It's only about making your work more accessible to others.
>> >> 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.
You keep saying I don't understand about responsibility, among other
things.
>> >> >> > 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.
I think that's largely a function of communication dissonance. I'm
plenty practiced at what I do. I "counsel" PhDs, world-famous people,
etc., too.
>> >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,
Sure he is. He's a perfect foil for the part of you that likes to ride
out, searching adventure, conflict, vanqui****ng foes, etc- you know,
all those King Arthur allusions.
>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,
Bingo.
>but the part I played HAD NOTHING TO DO with the
>belief systems that created it. So your statement above is flat WRONG!
I'd say on a collective level, the Democrats had just a little less
resolve in getting their candidate elected. But there are some
personal levels to this, for both of us.
>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.
Not directly responsible for it, but responsible for their own level
of participation in it (which does add energy to it).
>Or the negativity perpetrated by others.
>I WILL NOT ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR OTHERS.
I've never suggested you ought to.
>> 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.
Which is, to me, then choosing to participate in it.
>> >(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.
Pulling the trigger on the nuclear option seems over the top. If you
really are as secure in your beliefs as you say, who cares what others
make up?
It's rather like ****ing where you sleep, or pulling a christian
right: you really think it will silence someone to attempt yanking
their account? That's just pouring fuel on the fire.
For the skeptics, that *is* the goal. They love it when you express
outrage. Is that really what you want?
>I remain STANDING, using my own name and
>identity proudly and still in integrity.
Regardless the effect it has on how everyone else sees you. Of course,
that does keep legitimizing the King Arthur persona.
>> Do you sup****t everything Exxon does? Do you use their gas?
>
>No I don't.
The point was that you participate with people or businesses all the
time with whom you might have serious philosophical disagreements.
>> >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.
My whole entree into this was your bullying tactics.
>> >Fortunately I am far more diligent and aware
>
>> lol.
>
>Defense.
IN YOUR WORLD, Ed. You can claim whatever you want. I see what goes on
around you. I know something about what all that means.
>> >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!
Yet you consistently ignore the point I make just above.
>> >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.
Uh, not really.
>> >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.
Whatever.
>The book
>has already been edited for grammatical or insignificant errors--it
>STILL SAYS THE SAME THING!
Grammar and style editing isn't supposed to change the meaning.
>> It's arrogance to think a comment about improving your book could only
>> be an insult.
>
>I was born at noon, not YESTERDAY noon.
Well, you're certainly free to construe it as you choose.
Ken
--
cfa at alt dot net
|
