|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 48
RESPONDENT: Get with it Richard! Either respond to Respondent No. 46 or look like a spineless coward AGAIN! RICHARD: As I have already responded to two posts so far it would appear you have missed my
e-mails ... they can be found in the archives at these links: www.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=908309186 I am only about halfway through writing my next response so it may be some time yet before I post it ... in the meanwhile, as you will be in the archives anyway, you may care to access the following URL as well (it is an e-mail Peter wrote to you, going into some detail, in response to your other contribution to this mailing list): www.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=903930496 As you never responded it too may have escaped your notice.
RESPONDENT: Get with it Richard! Either respond to Respondent No. 46 or look like a spineless coward AGAIN! RICHARD: As I have already responded to two posts so far it would appear you have missed my e-mails ... they can be found in the archives at these links: (snip links). I am only about halfway through writing my next response so it may be some time yet before I post it ... RESPONDENT: Golly ... your actualist’s spontaneity seems to have slowed right down there Richard ... RICHARD: All that happened was that I had other things to do halfway through and went and attended to them – I do have a life other than writing on the internet – and when I sat at the computer again I chose to respond to some other contributions towards enabling peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, before recommencing where I left off. Just as I am doing now with your contribution to such peace and harmony. RESPONDENT: ... to that of a predictable lizard brain’s pray??? RICHARD: As your premise is baseless so too is your speculation. * RESPONDENT: As for your last 5 attempts (from a safe distance) ... RICHARD: As my response directly addresses the [quote] ‘heartwood’ [endquote] of the questions, as invited, just what ‘safe distance’ would that be you are referring too? RESPONDENT: ... well they didn’t merit more than a cursory glance ... RICHARD: That would explain it then ... a closer examination may very well provide you with more than you might be able to digest in one sitting. * RICHARD: ... in the meanwhile, as you will be in the archives anyway, you may care to access the following URL as well (it is an e-mail Peter wrote to you, going into some detail, in response to your other contribution to this mailing list): (snip link). As you never responded it too may have escaped your notice. RESPONDENT: ... neither did Peter’s post [merit more than a cursory glance] way back ... RICHARD: Thank you for explaining how you read two of your co-respondents’ responses ... it does throw some light on your (unsubstantiated) ‘AGAIN’ allegation of pusillanimity at the top of this e-mail. RESPONDENT: ... but Respondent No. 46’s does [merit more than a cursory glance] ... RICHARD: Well now ... we may as well stop this charade of a discussion with this e-mail then, eh? RESPONDENT: ... waiting ... with pop corn. RICHARD: ‘Tis just as well you have some nourishment ... because if you are waiting for me to write something which suits your expectations – such as the intellectual constructs/intellectual deconstructs you find so meritorious of more than a cursory glance – you will be waiting forever. Having no imagination I only write about what is actual.
RESPONDENT: ... [your last 5 posts] didn’t merit more than a cursory glance ... RICHARD: That would explain it then ... a closer examination may very well provide you with more than you might be able to digest in one sitting. RESPONDENT: ... neither did Peter’s post [merit more than a cursory glance] way back ... RICHARD: Thank you for explaining how you read two of your co-respondents’ responses ... it does throw some light on your (unsubstantiated) ‘AGAIN’ allegation of pusillanimity at the top of the previous e-mail. RESPONDENT: ... but Respondent No. 46’s does [merit more than a cursory glance] ... RICHARD: Well now ... we may as well stop this charade of a discussion with this e-mail then, eh? RESPONDENT: ... waiting ... with pop corn. RICHARD: ‘Tis just as well you have some nourishment ... because if you are waiting for me to write something which suits your expectations – such as the intellectual constructs/intellectual deconstructs you find so meritorious of more than a cursory glance – you will be waiting forever. Having no imagination I only write about what is actual. RESPONDENT: Another cursory glance reveals why we are still waiting. RICHARD: Hmm ... I see that the royal ‘we’ has emerged (as you surely cannot be so presumptuous as to think you speak for all people). RESPONDENT: Absolutely nothing I wrote even merits a response. RICHARD: Then why write it? Somehow I am reminded of another co-respondent, some time ago, who told me that they did not want me to respond to what they wrote as they only wished to criticise/comment on my words. In other words: no critique of what the critic has to say, please. RESPONDENT: Yet Respondent No. 46’s correspondence, which appeared LONG BEFORE mine – and certainly does – remains unanswered. ??? RICHARD: As I remarked before: a more than ‘cursory glance’ may very well provide you with something you might not be able to digest in one sitting. RESPONDENT: So how about moving it along Richard. RICHARD: As I cannot respond to something which has not been responded to there is nothing to move along. RESPONDENT: Forget about your favourite fare of small fry for a while ... RICHARD: Ahh ... there is no such thing as ‘small fry’ in this actual world (everybody is equal here). RESPONDENT: ... and get down to some real ‘meaty’ stuff instead ... RICHARD: I am working on the assumption that, even though I suggested stopping this e-mail exchange in my last post (because someone who only gives my responses a cursory glance has to be conducting a charade of a discussion), you must consider what you have to say is the ‘meaty’ stuff you want me to get down to. Else why write it? RESPONDENT: ... such as the beginning middle and end of each and every sentence that ‘Respondent No. 46’ has put forward. RICHARD: You have to be joking, right? RESPONDENT: ... waiting. RICHARD: Ha ... as you are now fasting as well you may be in danger of wasting away into the bargain.
RESPONDENT: ... [your last 5 posts] didn’t merit more than a cursory glance ... RICHARD: That would explain it then ... a closer examination may very well provide you with more than you might be able to digest in one sitting. RESPONDENT: Still fantasizing! RICHARD: I am using the word ‘digest’ in the Oxford Dictionary/Thesaurus meaning of think about, consider, contemplate, mull over, weigh up, reflect on, ponder, meditate on, or study, the last five posts referred to so as to assimilate, absorb, take in, comprehend, understand, and thus grasp, the implications and ramifications of a fellow human being having ventured into territory which no enlightened being has ever traversed – virgin territory somewhat akin to the ‘white-out’ experienced by people in a featureless landscape of snow and ice – until that ‘Great Beyond’ which has been proposed heretofore to only be possible at physical death (‘Mahasamadhi’ in Hinduism, ‘Parinirvana’ in Buddhism, ‘Requiem In Pace’ in Christianity, and so on) became an actuality whilst the flesh and blood body was still alive. I am, of course, referring to not only that which has been described as ‘The Peace That Passeth All Understanding’ (only as an actuality and not a fantasy) but to being the actual experiencing of what has variously been called ‘the meaning of life’, ‘the purpose of the universe’, ‘the riddle of existence’, and so on. In short: being the actual experiencing of infinitude itself. * RESPONDENT: ... neither did Peter’s post [merit more than a cursory glance] way back ... RICHARD: Thank you for explaining how you read two of your co-respondents’ responses ... it does throw some light on your (unsubstantiated) ‘AGAIN’ allegation of pusillanimity at the top of the previous e-mail. RESPONDENT: Only an aggressive mind would see it that way. RICHARD: How do you know what way a peaceful mind would see it (as in what are your credentials) so as to be able to make this comparison? * RESPONDENT: ... but Respondent No. 46’s does [merit more than a cursory glance] ... RICHARD: Well now ... we may as well stop this charade of a discussion with this e-mail then, eh? RESPONDENT: Ahh! Imagining this is a ‘discussion’ too now eh? RICHARD: As to discuss means to talk or write about a topic with another your comment has no factual basis whatsoever ... in other words you can only be imagining that this is not, in fact, a discussion. * RESPONDENT: ... waiting ... with pop corn. RICHARD: ‘Tis just as well you have some nourishment ... because if you are waiting for me to write something which suits your expectations – such as the intellectual constructs/intellectual deconstructs you find so meritorious of more than a cursory glance – you will be waiting forever. Having no imagination I only write about what is actual. RESPONDENT: ... and yet more fantasizing! RICHARD: Oh? So you know better than me what goes on inside this skull (in that it is only a fantasy of mine that I have no imagination)? * RESPONDENT: Another cursory glance reveals why we are still waiting. RICHARD: Hmm ... I see that the royal ‘we’ has emerged (as you surely cannot be so presumptuous as to think you speak for all people). RESPONDENT: Imagining I am alone too now. RICHARD: As I did not say that you were alone you can only be imagining that I said that ... and as I personally know of at least three people who are not ‘still waiting’ you cannot possibly be speaking for all people. * RESPONDENT: Absolutely nothing I wrote even merits a response. RICHARD: Then why write it? RESPONDENT: Feigning ignorance of the variety of purposes for the written word smacks of insincerity. RICHARD: As I was not ‘feigning ignorance of the variety of purposes for the written word’ your conclusion is a non sequitur ... I am asking why you wrote to a subscriber on a discussion list set up for the very purpose of discussing a particular subject – an end to malice and sorrow and an actual freedom from the human condition – if absolutely nothing you wrote merits a response (according to you). Specifically I am asking whether you would rather have it that there be no critique of what the critic has to say. * RICHARD: Somehow I am reminded of another co-respondent, some time ago, who told me that they did not want me to respond to what they wrote as they only wished to criticise/comment on my words. RESPONDENT: No lack of fertile imagination there either. RICHARD: As I still have the e-mail that co-respondent wrote, backed up on various hard disks and CD’s with all my other correspondence, it cannot possibly be a matter of imagination (be it ‘fertile’ or otherwise). * RESPONDENT: Yet Respondent No. 46’s correspondence, which appeared LONG BEFORE mine – and certainly does – remains unanswered. ??? RICHARD: As I remarked before: a more than ‘cursory glance’ may very well provide you with something you might not be able to digest in one sitting. RESPONDENT: ... and yet more fantasising. RICHARD: No ‘fantasising’ is required to see that the [quote] ‘heartwood’ [endquote] of the correspondence in question was answered as invited ... only someone who gave those responses a ‘cursory glance’ could say that it remains unanswered. * RESPONDENT: So how about moving it along Richard. RICHARD: As I cannot respond to something which has not been responded to there is nothing to move along. RESPONDENT: The sort of reply that can only come from someone who can only imagine they have the mental capacity to work ‘anything’ out. RICHARD: It is this simple: person ‘A’ writes an e-mail on a particular topic; person ‘B’ writes a response to person ‘A’s e-mail; person ‘A’ writes a response to person ‘B’s response to their e-mail; person ‘B’ writes a response to person ‘A’s response to their response to person ‘A’s initial e-mail. It is then up to person ‘A’ to respond/not respond, to person ‘B’s response to their response to person ‘B’s response to their initial e-mail ... until that happens/unless that happens, there is nothing for person ‘B’ to move along. Where in all this is there any evidence of a ‘someone who can only imagine they have the mental capacity to work ‘anything’ out’ sort of reply? RESPONDENT: Pretentious ignorance and in this case [of internet sequencing] is atrocious coming from someone making the claims you do. RICHARD: When person ‘A’ writes an e-mail saying, for example, that it in a separate email they are going to be responding to what they deem to be the substantive issues they are discussing with both the person they are at that moment writing to and another co-respondent – and that they hope that person ‘B’ will enter that discussion as well then – then when that separate email arrives, for example, three days later and person ‘B’ responds to it as invited, and person ‘A’ writes a response to person ‘B’s response and person ‘B’ writes a response to person ‘A’s response to person ‘B’s response to person ‘A’s initial e-mail, it can only be pretentious ignorance of internet sequencing to then say that person ‘B’ has a pretentious ignorance of internet sequencing. And, quite possibly, this pretentious ignorance of internet sequencing is only so as to then be able to say that it is atrocious that person ‘B’ has a pretentious ignorance of internet sequencing. * RESPONDENT: Forget about your favourite fare of small fry for a while ... RICHARD: Ahh ... there is no such thing as ‘small fry’ in this actual world (everybody is equal here). RESPONDENT: Special too? RICHARD: Yes, everybody is special simply by being alive. RESPONDENT: But then I’m sure your fertile imagination will happily change the context when it serves your inflated ego. RICHARD: What ‘context’ are you referring to? * RESPONDENT: ... and get down to some real ‘meaty’ stuff instead ... RICHARD: I am working on the assumption that, even though I suggested stopping this e-mail exchange in my last post (because someone who only gives my responses a cursory glance has to be conducting a charade of a discussion), you must consider what you have to say is the ‘meaty’ stuff you want me to get down to. RESPONDENT: This deduction is truly pitiful. RICHARD: What if I were to spell it out for clarity? You, apparently, think that you know better than I do how I should conduct my discussions with my fellow human beings – you have made no secret of the fact that you consider the way I am doing it does not merit ‘more than a cursory glance’ – and have further considered this to be important enough to write to me to tell me about it (else why write it). Why then is my assumption, that you must consider what you have to say to be the meaty stuff you want me to get down to, a ‘truly pitiful’ deduction? RESPONDENT: Your imagination has ‘yet again’ run away with you. RICHARD: Shall I put it this way? Your continued insistence that you know better than I do how I should conduct my discussions with my fellow human beings can only be your imagination yet again running away with you. To explain: I have extensive experience in describing/explaining to my fellow human beings what an
actual freedom from the human condition is like so I am well aware of the main stumbling block, which goes by the name
cognitive dissonance Thus I have my own way of doing things ... howsoever, if you really think you can do it better then go ahead: you answer the beginning, middle, and end, of each and every sentence of what you deem to be the meaty stuff on this mailing list. * RESPONDENT: ... such as the beginning middle and end of each and every sentence that ‘Respondent No. 46’ has put forward. RICHARD: You have to be joking, right? RESPONDENT: Certainly not! ... only in your imagination. RICHARD: So when person ‘A’ constructs something which does not exist, that 2+2=5 for example, and then proceeds to ... um ... to deconstruct this construct then person ‘B’ has to (a) forget about the small fry (whoever they are)... and (b) get down to the meaty stuff (whatever that is)... and (c) respond to the beginning, middle, and end, of every sentence person ‘A’ has written about 2+2=5 (whatever that means) when even person ‘A’ themself has only invited dealing with the [quote] ‘heartwood’ [endquote] of the e-mail containing the various expansions of the 2+2=5 construct/deconstruct they hoped person ‘B’ would respond to? Are you for real? * RESPONDENT: ... waiting. RICHARD: Ha ... as you are now fasting as well you may be in danger of wasting away into the bargain. RESPONDENT: All I can say is that for someone claiming to have no ability to imagine ... you are simply ‘full of it’. RICHARD: Yet I notice that this time around you are not ‘waiting’ anymore at the end of your e-mail – either with or without nourishment – so this ‘ability to imagine’ which you say I am ‘full of’ seems to be remarkably similar to what would otherwise be called seeing what is happening. Or in this case seeing what is no longer happening.
RESPONDENT: Golly (used to express ‘emotional’ surprise and wonder) ... RICHARD: If you use it to express ‘emotional’ surprise and wonder then that is your business ... this is the way I use it:
RESPONDENT: ... you do go on don’t you ... RICHARD: You found the subject matter of enough importance to give 16 replies, to what I had to say in the previous e-mail, so I provided 16 responses ... as responding to each and every point you raise, with care to detail so as to obviate any misunderstanding, evokes an emotional surprise and wonder in you that I ‘do go on’ in this manner am I to take it that other people you write to do not value clarity in communication? RESPONDENT: ... not that I’ve bothered to read it yet ... RICHARD: Hmm ... back to having a charade of a discussion then, eh? RESPONDENT: ... since its undoubtedly more of the same old predictable pedantic pettiness ... RICHARD: Only a person who gives my writing a cursory glance would describe it as ‘pedantic pettiness’ ... closer examination shows that what (presumably) may appear to be a trivial concern for adhering to the literal meaning of the words I use is actually an abiding interest in ensuring that what I have to describe/explain is not able to be misconstrued by my fellow human beings simply because of equivocacy on my part ... they would have to supply the ambiguity they may have become accustomed to by reading it with only one eye open (those that give it more than a cursory glance that is). In other words as I like my fellow human being I share my discovery of an actual freedom from the human condition with the clarity in communication such fellowship regard warrants ... what they do with such lucidity is up to them, of course. RESPONDENT: ... the old passion diverter. RICHARD: What is it that you do not want your passion diverted from? RESPONDENT: But by all means knock yourself out. RICHARD: As I am having so much fun here at the keyboard I am unable to meet your request. RESPONDENT: Yet tremendously humorous all at the same time. Delighted :-))) RICHARD: If being delighted by the tremendous humour you find in an intellectual construct of your own making – ‘pedantic pettiness’ – is what pleases you then it is no wonder that you deem any other such ... um .... meaty stuff you come across to be meritorious of more than a cursory glance. The intriguing part in all this is why you would be urging me to write more than I already have, less I look like [quote] ‘a spineless coward AGAIN’ [endquote] in your eyes, when if I did it would only be [quote] ‘more of the same old predictable pedantic pettiness’ [endquote] anyway, according to you. Ah well ... c‘est la vie, I guess.
CO-RESPONDENT: I notice you changed my original post title from ‘Hey Richie’ to ‘Hey Richard’ in your reply. RICHARD: This computer, being set-up for Australian English, automatically re-spells all words when I click the auto-format button in the word-processor I use ... howsoever, in view of it apparently being a matter of at least some importance to you, I have gone back and re-inserted it this time around (it is now underlined in the word-processor with a wavy red line). CO-RESPONDENT: A bit touchy are we? RICHARD: Ha ... I am yet to come across a ‘touchy’ word-processor. CO-RESPONDENT: Indeed I put it forth as a dig, yet with respect. RICHARD: Oh? Here is what the word ‘dig’ can mean:
CO-RESPONDENT: Much like the old adage ‘it’s not what you say – but how you say it’. RICHARD: Your explanation becomes all the more fascinating the more you go on about it. CO-RESPONDENT: Of course with this type of dialogue though, it’s not always easy to accurately discern another’s attitudes and motives. RICHARD: Just for the record, then, what was your attitude and motive when you respectfully put forth your sarcastic, taunting remark/your gibe/your remark directed against a person/your remark which is intended to criticise, embarrass or make a joke about someone/your aggressive remark directed at a person like a missile and intended to have a telling effect/your cutting remark/your cutting comment, taunt, jeer, unkind remark (or whatever the word means to you)? RESPONDENT: Fascinating how you missed noticing your Australian English Dictionary had automatically re-spelt your name yet you have never fail to notice when the auto format is on and un-click it so as to avoid correcting every other corespondents spelling errors. RICHARD: As I have been criticised in the past for ‘correcting every other corespondent’s spelling errors’ (to the point of being informed on one occasion it was an anal obsession) your assumptions are just that – assumptions – and, as there is no point in responding to the conclusions you drew from your assumptions, I will leave it to you to mull over the remainder of your e-mail without any further input from me. I have far better things to do with my time ... such as watching comedies on TV.
RESPONDENT No 53: Can you comment on this, Richard? From Mystique (Mistake) of Enlightenment: Pt.1: UG. www.well.com/user/jct/mystiq1.htm [snip four paragraph quote about stigmata mysticus]. RICHARD: I have far better things to do with my time ... such as sitting with my feet up on the coffee-table watching comedies on television. RESPONDENT: Woohoo :-) now that’s a bitch slap if ever I saw one hehehe :-) RICHARD: I do not know what a ‘bitch slap’ is but, given you also say ‘crotchety’ further below, I can piece together a likely comprehension:
As I did nothing like any of the above your spectator-style hooting-hilarity has been generated by your own transference-whimsy ... you are not cheering on/chortling at a living person but a fantasy-figure. RESPONDENT: Well the reason I don’t bother dialoguing here (or slothfully sitting with my feet up on the coffee table) is because there are far more exciting, productive and exquisitely sensate things to do with my time whilst observing the nature of being human. RICHARD: Apart from insinuating there be sloth (lacklustre sluggishness as contrasted to animating productivity) in an actual freedom from the human condition your attempt at promoting the time-honoured habit of people-watching into being a fruitful enterprise by claiming it to be ‘exquisitely sensate’ would be a lot more convincing if you were to share, not only your observations on the nature of being human, but in which way such observance has affected your own (biologically-inherited) human nature. In other words, it is one thing to observe human nature and another thing for there to be a resultant action which is beneficial not only for oneself but all humankind. RESPONDENT: And the only reason I do visit here is to read and appreciate the bright stimulating characters ... RICHARD: Possible translation: to read and appreciate the projections of like-minded commentators. RESPONDENT: ... who occasionally grace this space, many of whom would have been a privilege to know personally. But Richard you are not one of them. RICHARD: Indeed I am not ... this is very perspicacious of you. RESPONDENT: You say you have no presence or being, but your posts do. that of a crotchety, mean old musty, living deadman. RICHARD: And thus do you end as you began ... reading all manner of things
RESPONDENT: Here is an excerpt ‘of excerpts’ posted to this list a few years ago. Add them to his impassioned ‘Ohs!’ ... RICHARD: I copy-pasted <Ohs!> into the search-engine of my computer (and then removed the plural ‘s’ of course) and sent it through everything I have ever written ... only to have it return nil hits: is it possible that you deliberately added the exclamation mark so that it appears to be, as you say, impassioned? RESPONDENT: ...[Add them to his impassioned ‘Ohs!’] and ‘... umms ...’ ... RICHARD: I have explained several times before why I use ‘... um ...’ and there is nothing impassioned about it at all. For just one instance:
RESPONDENT: ... [Add them to his impassioned ‘Ohs!’ and ‘... umms ...’] and ‘just why on earths’ ... RICHARD: I copy-pasted <just why on earths> into the search-engine of my computer (and then removed the plural ‘s’ of course) and sent it through everything I have ever written ... only to have it return nil hits: howsoever as I do make use of the common expression ‘why on earth ...’ (26 times since 1997 according to the search-engine) I will take this opportunity to point out that it used as an intensive (grammatically, to give emphasis) and not to express passion. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: ... [Add them to his impassioned ‘Ohs!’ and ‘... umms ...’and ‘just why on earths’] and its as obvious the guy has a major communication problem. RICHARD: I see that you have tried this line of approach on before:
RESPONDENT: (...) They are nothing the vain self protective attacks of an ignorant fool. RICHARD: As your conclusion is drawn from doctored quotes (more on this below) and imputed passion/emotion it has no substance. RESPONDENT (re-posting another co-respondent’s un-referenced quotes): [Correspondent]: ‘Here’s a load of Richards antisocial antagonistic correspondence. They are chock full of, belittlement, unfriendliness, unkindness, arrogance, callous debunking, cynicism, sarcasm, provocation, feigned exasperation, downright unpleasantness, haughty indignation, phoney gratitude eg. ‘thank you for giving me permission!’ exaggerated exclamations ... RICHARD: Here is where this quote comes from:
I have highlighted the relevant words and, as is patently obvious, there is nary an exclamation mark to be seen ... is it possible that the person, whose quotes you have seen fit to re-post without checking for yourself their accuracy, has deliberately added the exclamation mark so that it appears to be, as they say, an exaggerated exclamation? There are many other instances of this doctoring in those un-referenced quotes from another
co-respondent ... for example: [quote] ‘Good grief!’ [endquote] is nowhere to be found ... and [quote] ‘Now I ask
you!’ [endquote] is nowhere to be found [quote] ‘What you are going to come up with next in your on going objection!’
[endquote] is nowhere to be found RESPONDENT (quoting another co-respondent’s un-referenced quotes): ... [‘Here’s a load of Richards] denial, feigned resignation, fault finding, phoney politeness eg. ‘If I may point out’ ... RICHARD: As to just how that phrase can be construed as faked civility has got me beat. RESPONDENT (quoting another co-respondent’s un-referenced quotes): ... [‘Here’s a load of Richards] ridicule, personal attack, browbeating and above all a total obsession with the word YOU. Richard wrote: ‘Some other correspondent came out with similar twaddle and this is just as silly’ [endquote]. RICHARD: Here is where this quote comes from:
Apart from editing out the parenthesised subject, without any indication of having done so, the selection of this quote indicates just what had got up the nose of the person, whose quotes you have seen fit to re-post without checking for yourself their accuracy, such as to mount their (doctored and misrepresented) case against me ... to wit: it was Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s wisdom which was being characterised as the ‘twaddle’ being referred to as similar. And there is no prize for guessing ... (1) what kind of mailing list it was ... and (2) whom the person concerned was an aficionado of. ‘Nuff said?
RESPONDENT: Here is an excerpt ‘of excerpts’ posted to this list a few years ago. Add them to his impassioned ‘Ohs!’ ... RICHARD: I copy-pasted <Ohs!> into the search-engine of my computer (and then removed the plural ‘s’ of course) and sent it through everything I have ever written ... only to have it return nil hits. RESPONDENT: Key this into Google then Mr BS artist: Oh, site:www.actualfreedom.com.au. RICHARD: Okay ... and here is the very first hit:
If you could explain how that is me being ‘impassioned’ I would be most interested. * RICHARD: ... is it possible that you deliberately added the exclamation mark so that it appears to be, as you say, impassioned? RESPONDENT: The word ‘Oh’ is a PASSIONATE exclamation in itself, how dumb can you get. RICHARD: Not dumb enough, obviously, as it has not escaped my attention that you are not addressing the question as asked ... to wit: is it possible that you deliberately added the exclamation mark so that it appears to be, as you say, impassioned? RESPONDENT: Check out any dictionary: ‘used to express strong emotions’. RICHARD: That is not the only definition ... for example, the (further above) instance – ‘oh, you do not mean bruised emotionally’ – is an expression of mild surprise, not of strong emotion. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: Since it would be senseless for you to use it to address your correspondents doubly, or call them a zero, then one can only deduce that its being used to convey an ‘attitude’ in the dictionary sense of: a state of mind or a feeling, since no text book would use it to ‘simply state a fact’. RICHARD: If I may point out? My e-mails are a correspondence, an exchange with a fellow human being (as in a conversation, a discussion, and so on) and not a text book ... and the attitude (if that is the right word) in the further above instance, for example, is an attitude of surprise, not an attitude of a feeling (as in a strong emotion). * RESPONDENT: ...[Add them to his impassioned ‘Ohs!’] and ‘... umms ...’ ... RICHARD: I have explained several times before why I use ‘... um ...’ and there is nothing impassioned about it at all. RESPONDENT: The context and manner in which you use your Ohs and umms smack of attitude ... and an immature and insolent one at that. RICHARD: Even if (note ‘if’) my use of ‘... um ...’ were to smack of attitude the question is whether it smacks of an impassioned one or not. * RICHARD: For just one instance: [Richard]: ‘... my use of the common human expression
<um> in this paragraph is nothing more than expressing a searching for a word (as in <er> or <er-um>
or any other variation) as I was unsure as to whether to write <humour> or <irony> or <satire> given
that you have previously explained what your modus operandi is using, at the very least, any and all of those words. RESPONDENT: Liar. Since when have you been at a loss for words ... time and time again. RICHARD: I have occasion to search for an appropriate word on a daily basis ... I quite often hesitate, saying ‘um’, until it pops into place. RESPONDENT: In fact ... I’m not going to waste my precious time replying to the rest of your pretentious denials. RICHARD: I see ... you re-present some (doctored and/or misrepresented) un-referenced quotes, making certain allegations, and when I reply, setting the record straight, your response is to classify same as ‘pretentious denials’ – whilst saying you are not going to waste your time replying – yet then go on to find it strange I never refuted them previously. RESPONDENT: Suffice to say that you are well aware from which mailing list your ‘dirt’ was excerpted and strangely never refuted by you, neither there nor here, when they were first posted two years ago. RICHARD: Of course I am well aware which mailing list it was ... and the excerpts were, in fact, first posted five (5) years ago. Vis.:
I responded on Sunday October 02 1999 AEST
And I responded to that post on Monday October 03 1999 AEST Or, put simply, no critique of what the critic has to say, please.
RESPONDENT: Yet ‘now’ when you are well aware that the old archives of the Listening-l mailing list have not been downloaded to their new site you want proof! RICHARD: As I have my own records I do not require any proof. RESPONDENT: How cunning, tut tut. RICHARD: As your conclusion is based upon a false surmise it has no substance. RESPONDENT: But since I’m not here, as you are, to impress or save face ... RICHARD: I see ... you re-present some (doctored and/or misrepresented) un-referenced quotes, making certain allegations, and when I reply, setting the record straight, your response is to classify same as ‘to impress or save face’ – whilst saying you are not here to do that – yet then go on to suggest leaving it to anyone interested to verify for themselves that the excerpts were indeed precisely copied and pasted. RESPONDENT: ... [But since I’m not here, as you are, to impress or save face], 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. RICHARD: This may be an apt moment to point out that, as there is not all that much difference between saving face and having egg on it, I have always found it pays to be well-informed before mounting a critique. Moreover, 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.
RESPONDENT: Here is an excerpt ‘of excerpts’ posted to this list a few years ago. Add them to his impassioned ‘Ohs!’ ... RICHARD: I copy-pasted <Ohs!> into the search-engine of my computer (and then removed the plural ‘s’ of course) and sent it through everything I have ever written ... only to have it return nil hits: is it possible that you deliberately added the exclamation mark so that it appears to be, as you say, impassioned [just as the person, whose quotes you have seen fit to re-post without checking for yourself their accuracy, deliberately added the exclamation marks so that it appears to be, as they say, exaggerated exclamations]? (...) I have always found it pays to be well-informed before mounting a critique. Moreover, 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). RESPONDENT No. 53: You would know about doctoring and/or misrepresenting another’s words, anyone’s words and/or reading things into them which are simply not there, and so forth, in order place yourself above anyone and everyone, and thus the more you demonstrate that you are actually and factually a bag of hot air meant to keep that massive ego and deluded soul of yours afloat and alive. RICHARD: Not so ... the reason why I do know about the doctoring of and/or the misrepresenting of another’s words, anyone’s words, and/or the reading of things into them which are simply not there, and so forth, is because that is what certain persons do, in order to find fault, to my report/description/explanation of life here in this actual world. I may be a lot of things ... but I am not silly. RESPONDENT: How vain and deluded you are. RICHARD: As there is nary a trace of either vanity or delusion anywhere to be found in this flesh and blood body I am unable to look at what you see when you read my words. RESPONDENT: Look how cunningly you try to divert your readers from the essence of a question by running off mid sentence and making a ridiculous brouhaha out of one or two (besides the point) words. RICHARD: There were three to-the-point (else why post them) words, actually, and even though the snipped-for-brevity text at the top of this page might make it seem to have been cut-off in mid-sentence, in the original they were reinserted (in squared brackets) so as to provide continuity. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: Diversion tactics that stand out like dogs balls these days. RICHARD: Since when has responding to each and every allegation, in detail, with referenced quotes as evidence, and with dictionary definitions as appropriate to lend clarity to communication, been diversionary devices? RESPONDENT: Yet try as you might to bury your inadequate answers in a tangled quagmire of dictionary definitions (copied and pasted like some proud 5 year old) the fact remains there is no actual/factual evidence to your claims at all. RICHARD: What you see as a ‘tangled quagmire’ of dictionary definitions is revealed to be two (2) references only upon closer inspection. Vis.:
And:
RESPONDENT: All you manage to prove (time and time again ad nauseam) is that simple clarity has escaped you. RICHARD: If your words, in this post and previous, are a demonstration of what ‘simple clarity’ means to you then I am well-pleased that it has escaped me. RESPONDENT: [All you manage to prove is] That you are woefully incompetent, vain and arrogant and sorely lacking in basic communication skills. RICHARD: Again, if your words, in this post and previous, are a demonstration of what ‘basic communication skills’ means to you then I am well-pleased to be lacking in them. RESPONDENT: All of which that belies your every word. RICHARD: There is no question that what you see when you read my words does indeed belie every word you read. RESPONDENT: You are nothing but a clown, albeit an entertaining one. RICHARD: That would be in keeping with what you see when you read my words. RESPONDENT: Thanks, but the world is full of clowns like you. RICHARD: ‘Tis not me that warrants your appreciation ... as it is what you see, when you read my words, which is entertaining for you then some hard-earned self-congratulation is what is being called for.
Footnote: (1.)[quote] ‘What you are going to come up with next in your on going objection!’ [endquote] is nowhere to be found: Here is where that quote came from:
Thus not only is there nary an exclamation mark to be seen but my words ‘I do so look forward to ...’ are missing, the lower-case ‘w’ has been capitalised, the hyphen has been taken out of ‘on-going’, and my words ‘... to being happy and harmless’ are also absent. Apart from the obvious doctoring (inserting an exclamation mark where there was none) it is the
pointless doctoring – especially the rather odd removal of a hyphen – which indicates, perhaps, something somewhat
out-of-kilter about such a person’s state of mind. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• CORRESPONDENT No. 48 (Part Two) RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX 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 1997-2001 |
