rondele wrote on May 10^th, 2011 at 6:34pm:

That's quite an attack, Justin.  I suppose I could ignore it but if I did that, you would no doubt assume it's because you "caught" me. First, a general statement: I don't drink the kool-aid that so many of you do.  I was taught to use critical thinking.  If something strikes me as unfounded, I tend to point that out.  That automatically makes me a suspect in your eyes, but so be it.

  If it wasn't for you constant negative labeling and generalizing on the Bin Laden about people who believe it's possible or probable that 9/11 was an inside job, or who just question the official story, i would not have focused on you to begin with.  Well, not actually true, like i said i earlier have seen you subtly try to undermine Bruce and his work and that concerned me as well.

  But note the highlighted parts in the above, not only do you "attack" me in the above, but you attack multiple people with such a derogatory and extremist type statement.  What are you implying, that some or many of us are non thinking, brainwashed cult members? 

  These kinds of statements of yours, just support my suspicions of you and your real intent here.   


Quote:

You say I don't argue the specific points.  If we're talking about 9/11 conspiracies, it's hard to argue specifically simply because the allegations are so far-fetched and are fueled by such anger against Bush or the CIA that no rational rebuttal is ever accepted.

  Yet again a distraction.  How many times do people have to tell you that they don't question the official 9/11 story because of any personal dislike for Bush, the CIA, or whoever.  Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying that the most patriotic thing we can do as citizens is to dissent when our government is not acting with its citizens best interests in mind.  Other notables strongly cautioned and suggested that we constantly question our government and it's actions.

  The above accusations about anger towards Bush etc. are not germane to the circumstantial evidence that multiple people on this the Bin Laden thread have brought up, only to be ridiculed and put down by people like you, with overly generalized statements and characterizations like the above about our supposed "such anger" to Bush etc.


Quote:

Not to say I haven't tried.  I pointed out that bin Laden was a well known terrorist way before 9/11, way before Bush was ever elected, but that doesn't matter to you.  The WTC was a target 8 years before Bush was even elected.  Again, that makes no difference.

  Again, you don't seem to understand that some people here have been saying that it's not specifically just a Bush issue.  Bush just happened to be the President at the time.  In some ways, i think Bush and his admin. has been a great blessing in disguise to this country, because he and his administration really opened up a lot of our eyes to the degree of corruption and special interests involved with our government.  It became so much more obvious with these.   Thank you Bush et al for that.

   So again, my perspective and position is that 9/11 being an inside job is more of a general corruption issue in our country and indicative of how much greed, materialism, power lust, and selfishness has become so mainstream, accepted, and even fostered here.   There are many other indications and incidents besides 9/11.   Enron for another example.   It's really more of a culture issue than anything.  It's just that certain groups and individuals epitomize and example in a extreme way this sickness of lack of PUL attunement. 

  Re: your point about Bin Laden, well it's well documented that he did not take credit for this attack initially, in fact he denied it.  Course, there has been some rather fishy voice and video of him that has come out since.

  In any case, the U.S. Federal Gov. and forces connected to same like the Federal Reserve Bank, have been involved with terrorism long before Bin Laden came on the scene.  With the U.S. government, it started with the Native Americans and the Africans.  Then Vietnam, and various black op political manipulations, assassinations, mini wars, etc. in various South and Central American countries, Cuba, and in other countries and lately Iraq, Afghanistan.

   So what is exactly your point about Bin Laden in the above about?  Hmm, what about the other well known false flag operations that the U.S. gov. has carried out in order to make our countries citizens agree to go to war?   What about what happened with Vietnam?    So you're telling me it couldn't possibly happen in our times?   Somehow humanity and our government and this system has completely cleaned up it's act and only become ethical and above board in all it's dealings? 

Quote:

That said, how dare you compare me to Herman Goeing! That is outrageous.

  It is pretty outrageous considering that i didn't do that.  If you read what i wrote more carefully, you will read that i was not addressing you specifically when i mentioned Goeing, but mentioned his "teachings" about propaganda often being effective just by repetition of a certain concept.   The only comparison at all came in my observation of your repeating on the Bin Laden thread of how crazy, unbelievable, etc. that it is that people question the official 9/11 story . 

  I would not directly compare you to Goeing because that is far too extreme of a comparison.  Goeing was a pathological sociopath of the first degree, and the likes of which are somewhat rare in this world (at least i hope!).


Quote:

But it's just another example of how on the one hand you profess your pure unconditional love, while turning around and indulging in character assassination.  Does the word hypocrisy ring a bell with you?

  First off, i've stated a few times here that while it's my goal and deepest desire to become a pure channel of PUL, that i'm not there yet and often fall short of that in any level of consistency.  As i said in my last reply, i have rarely, rarely ever spoke about another forum member in such a personal and critical way. 

But in any case, the word hypocrisy does sometimes ring a bell with me, for i am human and sometimes err.  Are you completely free of that?  If so, you are very, very spiritual advanced.  Do you chill with He/She?


Quote:

Bruce's book in which he talks about being in contact with RAM was written years before his northern VA workshop. When I spoke with Laurie during a break, she most definitely did say that her dad had long since passed on and as far as she knew, no one was in contact with him.

  More specifically you stated before that Laurie expressed quite noticeable disbelief in the claim.  Not that she just stated as far as she was aware, no one was in contact with him.  I don't remember exactly if you said you had told her about Bruce's claim or not.

 

Quote:

Unfortunately, Laurie has since died and cannot corroborate this.  Bruce can confirm she was at that workshop.  Further, please provide the link where Laurie said she was in contact with her dad.  I never said she hadn't ever been in contact with her dad after he died.  You need to understand the timing.

   More distraction.  Don't worry, i will provide your quotes on the issue (later), and also the poster who shortly later shared a link with an article in which Laurie stated that she and OTHERS have been in contact with her father, contrary to what she supposedly told you. 


Quote:

Your calling me a liar doesn't change the facts.

  Actually i said that either Laurie was lying, or you were.  I did say that i lean to the latter.  However, i've also considered that maybe it was a big misunderstanding and that there was no lying involved on any part. 


Quote:

The most disgusting thing you have said relates to my helping Vicky with her book.  I did that after she put out a request for volunteers to read and comment on it.  I did that, not because she is a friend of Bruce, but because I had the time and because writing is something I have always enjoyed.  I did it to help her, not to curry favor with Bruce.  If that was my motive, I would have told Bruce right after I had completed it.  The only reason I recently mentioned it for the first time was because I felt bad about my post to Seraphis and wanted to assure him that I was sincere in my apology.

  Oh, i remember the posts and incident quite well.  I also remember why you brought it up.  I remember something you said to Seraphis which not only seemed, but felt extremely sarcastic about him relating to Bruce's info.   I was not the only one who picked up on that.

   If one has a hidden agenda on a forum, one can't push people away too much, otherwise they will not be listened to, right?   So, when a couple of different people questioned your vibe then, then surely with your apology you're going to mention how helpful and supportive you are. 

  In fact, i think it has nothing to do with currying favor with Bruce in a personal sense, but rather keeping up a certain "i'm an ok, helpful guy" image here on the forum.  The best good deeds are those that remain anonymous, wouldn't you agree?  Wouldn't it been enough to apologize, and to just simply state that you respect and support Bruce's work?   


Quote:

Yet you choose to impute some ulterior motive to my helping her.  You know Justin, you are really in need of some personal counseling.  Your attacks border on the irrational.

   Just like my beliefs that 9/11 was mostly an inside job eh?    My usual and consistent approach on this forum, in the last 4 years or so, has been primarily discussing impersonally info, concepts, etc. even when i happen to disagree with another poster.  In that time, i've rarely ever gotten "personal" with another poster.   I've seen a lot of subtle put downs, sarcastic remarks, and blanketed generalizations about other forum members or the site here from you though. 

This, in other words, speaks for itself.  So i finally speak up and call you on your bluff and your b.s., which makes me a horrible, sick person who really needs counseling?  I'm one of the few people on this site, who actually stood up for Don a couple of occasions, not because i agree with him and his approach, but because he is a fellow human being and PUL should apply to all, even those who mistreat others or have different beliefs than ourselves.

But i'm also well aware that Yeshua--a man i respect more than any other, a very PUL attuned person, spoke very strongly and critically towards some sometimes.  Even to calling some Pharisees venomous vipers.  But for him, it wasn't "personal", there was no personal dislike.  While he pointed out their erring ways, he still loved them and saw and looked for the Source in them.  Likewise, there is no personal dislike in my heart towards you.

  One thing that PUL attunement does, is expands and clarifies ones perceptions in all manners and ways.  One starts to clearly see through the shadow, mirages, illusions, lies, etc. in life and in others.   

 
Quote:

You even make a point of saying I was wrong about Max being a thief.  You're right, I was wrong, but that wasn't my point to begin with.  How petty of you to include that in your attack.

  That was perhaps not necessary.  In any case, it was in specific context of it possibly being an indication that you weren't as interested or involved with Bruce's work as you have claimed.  Like i said, my experience is that my memory is very sharp and clear for things that are more important to me. 


Quote:

And you pat yourself on the back by saying that you remembered who Max was because you "like and respect Bruce's work that much." As if I don't.  Why would I have read his books and paid the money to attend his workshop if I didn't think he was on the level?  Cute, Justin, very cute.

  It is well known that various gov. agents went undercover to The Monroe Institute, acted as regular people, paid the money for programs, etc.  In other words, the U.S. federal gov. tried to infiltrate TMI.  But they had an hidden agenda, didn't they?   Are you saying that it's not possible for people to come to this site, and not be as seem or try to appear?   If someone like that was here, i would expect them to follow a similar pattern as you.  Subtly denigrating and calling into question the "leader" of the site or his work.  Why would that ever happen though?   Because people like Bruce Moen are considered dangerous to our Government and this corrupt system.  People like Bruce help to give power back in the hands of the people, helps to foster real freedom in others. 

   Many in the highest positions of power and influence don't want to see people become free in those ways.  If that happened, if too many of us became more free, we would start to really change the whole system.  In fact, we would tear it down and rebuild a much more ethical, peaceful, and non materialistic based system. 

   Since so many in positions of power and influence so enjoy materialism and this elitism and power over others, the last thing they want to see happen is the above.  That's their "end of the world" scenario.

  Personally, i don't think you respect or like Bruce's work all that much and i will show you specific quotes of yours which make me think this.  You're not the only one with developed critical faculties and who can read inbetween the lines.

Quote:

Justin- Regarding the Japan earthquake, a genuine disaster with enormous human suffering, I am struck by something I recently read in one of Bruce's books. In his Planning Center chapter, he is told by a tour guide about "the Big Plan for Earth" which involves large population reductions in the near future. The purpose of these reductions is to lessen human impact on the ecosystem.  The PC is actively preparing support for the huge volume of people who will die voluntarily in order to improve the ecosystem. In fact, many folks chose this period of time to incarnate so that they could die of AIDS.  Apparently having AIDS helps people about the value of facing certain death and learning to break through the fear of death. So we are left to conclude that natural disasters, even plagues, should be viewed as positive developments regardless of all the human suffering and agony that accompany them.  That's because those who die arranged it ahead of time. I wonder if the Japanese see it this way? This kind of thinking reminds me of India, where people ignore those who are suffering on the basis that they are working out their own karma and should therefore be left alone. Comments?

  Notice especially your comments about India relating to the Caste system, as if Bruce and the guidance he communicated with were somehow saying that we should be callous to peoples suffering. 

  I wrote you back to you regarding this topic, and i said it was not a black and white issue as you were portraying.

  You replied,
Quote:

Justin- Just to clarify, it wasn't Bruce who was making these comments.  It was a Tour Guide from the Planning Center Bruce visited. Incidentally, regarding AIDS, the guide told Bruce (and I'm quoting here): "Look at the population segment where AIDS first showed up- in homosexuals.  Now there's a group even good Christians can hate.  That's a real incongruity in a religion based on a God who said you must love your neighbor as yourself.......that incongruity is an opportunity to incarnate into a lifetime as a Christian to learn about Love." You can draw your own conclusions.  I certainly have drawn mine.

 

  I wrote you back again, and just briefly, but very specifically i asked you what conclusions you had drawn.  As i suspected, you didn't answer back.  I suspected that because my intuitive sense was telling me that you were trying to subtly put Bruce's work in a negative light and doing so in a way without directly coming out and accusing.  No, you are too subtle for that Rondele, and your tongue is silver.  You're good at implying and insinuating. 


Quote:

Regarding my own personal experiences:  I've been on this board much longer than you, so maybe you don't recall that I did post several experiences indicative of the existence of the afterlife.  One involved my life being saved by an angel when I was about 11 or 12.  I don't go on about these things because they are very personal.

  I did not say you hadn't ever posted any of your personal experiences, but rather that i didn't remember any such postings.  I said that, because it's rather unusual for a forum member in general, and especially considering the intention and very foundation of this site. 

   I can reasonably accept that some of your experiences were too personal to mention, but i've been here for a long time and it's something that is not at all a focus for you here.  This naturally makes me wonder.  Even our New Age disliking Don has shared more actual self experiences than you have. 

  But maybe you are just an ultra private person who doesn't like to share much at all about self.  Yet, you talk about yourself in other respects, like that you hunt, live in norther VA not far from the D.C. area etc.  But on a site devoted to the nonphysical and to individuals experience around same and with the huge majority of members more or less intune with that, your constant silence on this, but your rather sarcastic comments towards others, IS suspect to me, and i doubt i'm the only one.   


Quote:

Now to your most egregious (look it up) charge:  You say "isn't it just so convenient that Rondele not only personally saw the plane crash into the Pentagon, but ALSO (your caps) personally knew and had a neighbor that was on one of the flights." Yes, I get the sarcasm in your remark.  And the clear implication that I'm lying.  I won't repeat what I've already posted about that morning. Since you've already impugned my character, nothing I can say would make any difference to you.  The Olsons lived here in Great Falls, and for you and others to trivialize her death by saying the plane never crashed into the Pentagon is so atrocious and despicable that I'll not dignify it any further.

  A simple taste of your own medicine re: the first highlight. 

     What i actually said, is that it was either a amazing confluence of synchronicity or that you were lying.  I did not say that i was certain of any deceit.  In truth, i suspect that some parts of your comment were true. 

  Re: the 2nd highlighted part, i will have YOU and others note that i did not address the Pentagon incident specifically on that thread.  I kept my research and data sharing to addressing the WTC towers. 

  I also stated quite clearly that it was my hunch that  all of this was probably a mix of both an inside job (the demolition at the WTC towers), and letting certain things our gov. had pre knowledge of, happen.  So, in my view, it's possible that a real Islamic terrorist type did hijack the plane your neighbor was on, and was responsible for her death. 


Quote:

You can believe what you want.  Whether you accept what I say or whether you don't is totally irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. All in all, Justin, a shameful attack.

  I will thanks, same to you.  To me, it's "shameful" that you don't often post on this site, nor post in any depth usually (minus the recent above post), and yet frequently in your posts we find constant sarcasm and sly belittling of others. 

  Particularly shameful is the repeated extremist, negative labeling and manipulative generalizations you assigned to those who question the official 9/11 story on the Bin Laden thread.   

  Someone finally stood up to you, and called a spade a spade in front of everyone.  Someone with no attachment to "being liked" or need to project a positive, "spiritual" image to others and the group.  Such people are very dangerous aren't they Rondele, dangerous at least in the eyes of our own government and to the many power hungry, control freaks who tend to want to run same.

      This conversation between us, very much fits in with the whole 9/11 issue in some deeper and less obvious ways.  It's possible that you are just really, really naive to how our gov. sometimes operates to benefit the few over the majority, the corruption in same, etc.   But, i also consider it a possibility that you are very aware of this, agree with it, and are an active participant in supporting such a system. 

  Most people wouldn't say such things out loud even if they felt or thought it.  Why, because most people have fear in relation to how they will be perceived by others.  Many are somewhat naive, and wouldn't even discern or question such things to begin with.  I use to be one of those people.  I use to be very trusting and naive of others around me.  Life has taught me, the hard way, that not everything is as it seems and that there is a shadow side to people and activities in the earth. 

  Since i've gotten guidance about the positive nature of Bruce and his work, i will defend him and this forum if i feel there is some kind of attack going on.  I can ignore ignorant but sincere people like Don because they are just argumentative and insecure.  But there are other kind of people out there, more subtle and manipulative types and wouldn't you agree that the best attacks are from the inside, from supposed "friends"?  What's the old sayings, "beware Greeks bearing gifts" or "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer".

  A quick note.  I've been searching for the thread re: the Laurie Monroe incident and am having a hard time finding it since it's past the 40 post history one can pull up on other forum members.  At the time of reading it, it was only a curious anomaly to me since i hadn't yet begun thinking of Rondele in the manner of possibly having a deeper, hidden more negative agenda for being here.

  But, in my search, i found some other curious statements of his from one particular post which can be found within that 40 post history.  the below is excerpted from this thread:

http://afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1299614892/14#14


Quote:

Actually, even the title of this Board is misleading since "knowledge" of the afterlife is really quite unobtainable.  At best we can only get bits and pieces and even those are highly distorted by our own internal filters. The best description of what lies beyond this physical plane is the word ineffable.  Seraphis is right...there are no words and no intellect that can even begin to understand. Spending time (and money) thinking that we can understand the nature of reality and what lies beyond is a fool's errand.

Notice carefully the highlighted portions of his quotes.  Now, it's alright if one is skeptical to the concept that we can really know anything about the nonphysical etc.   The contradiction and issue comes up when such a person speaks so strongly and absolutely about such things, but turns around and says they support and respect people's work like Bruce Moen's which is devoted to the premise that we CAN indeed find out with certainty about the nonphysical, and his work is all about teaching methods to do so. 

   Does it seem to you, like to me, that Rondele is trying to cast strong seeds of doubt in the minds and hearts of explorers who resonate with the very core of Bruce's work? 

  In fact, he goes on to say characterize that any attempts on part of us to do so, are just "fool's errands". 

  Then what the hey is he doing here?  How does he actually respect and support Bruce's work which is devoted to this "fool's errand". 

  Are you beginning to see the sly and subtly undermining nature of Rondele's presence here?  This same person tells us that to question the official gov. santioned story of 9/11 and to question if it was an inside job is beyond stupid, and then personally insults in a round about manner people with those questions or beliefs.  Repeatedly also mis-characterizes them in a slanderous and overly generalized manner.  We're all a bunch of democratic Bush haters who don't know the first thing about real PUL, etc. etc. 


Back to the topic: Besides disagreeing with his premise based on actual experience and my deepest intuition, i will note that outer sources like Rosiland McKnight's guidance also taught VERY differently than Rondele. 

They effectively said that within each person, is ALL possible knowledge and awareness (read that again), and that it's only a matter of accessing same.   They said we are Divine Beings at our core, and can become consciously One with the very Creator, and the more we build up this Oneness within, the more we will come to truly know in certainty. 

  They did not say that nonphysical exploration was simply a fool's errand, and did not try to deter people from same, but encouraged it.  They said the more you go within, and the more you can know about the larger reality of which the physical is only a very small slice of a dimension of. 

  Btw, i'm not saying we should try to ban or get rid of Rondele.  All i'm trying to do, is to give others a clear heads up of what i've learned of where he is actually coming from in being on this site, and as you can see above from his own words it's definitely not in support of Bruce's work.  As mentioned, the very purpose of this site and Bruce's work is that same "fools errand" that Rondele characterized such activities and beliefs as. 

  I would say, probably Bruce would say, Rosie's guidance would definitely say, that knowledge of the Afterlife is just as real and obtainable as our physical perceptions, experience, and our knowledge based on same.

  Yes, Rondele, you have been "caught" so to speak.  Clearly there are some that would try to free humanity from it's illusions of limitation, and there are those that would keep us limited and stuck within a physical reality and focus.   

 
P.S., btw, i'm speaking as one who doesn't believe in or agree with everything that Bruce Moen says, teaches or lives himself.  But i do agree with him on many of the fundamentals of his work, teachings, and methods.  I'm one of the few here, who has vocally disagreed with Bruce on some issues.  Yet, i do highly respect him and his work.  Like i've said, i've gotten positive guidance about him/his work, and when guidance recommends and speaks, i try to listen for i know this level is wiser, more aware, and intune than my conscious self often is. 

The manner in which Rondelle and Don (Berserk) like to question how much PUL people have is a bit much, especially since they don't express PUL as they do so. As far as I'm concerned you might as well tell a person they don't have a soul.

Having PUL doesn't mean you have to let people walk all over you or make all kinds of snide remarks.

recoverer wrote on May 11^th, 2011 at 1:13pm:

Having PUL doesn't mean you have to let people walk all over you or make all kinds of snide remarks.

  I think it depends on the inner intent and motivation.  If one is just selfishly defending self in such situations, then it's not something that will build spiritual growth within. 

    If one is coming from a more impersonal space, and defending truth, others, etc., then possibly not letting others walk over you or others is ok. 

   It's interesting to note that often Yeshua was "turn the other cheek" even as to allowing others to beat, torture, falsely accuse and murder him..

  Yet, at other times, he debated the Pharisees and others of his time, and even occasionally used some pretty strong and critical language in relation to them and spent some time pointing out what he perceived as errors.

  I suspect the reason for the change and difference between some circumstances is that in the latter case it was not personal for him, and he was more so trying to stick up for truth and others.  The Pharisees and other "experts" of his time in positions of power and influence, had a limiting effect on others and on their society and culture.  Apparently he thought it necessary to call them out on this. 

  I use to think and believe, that one shouldn't ever think or say anything critical about or towards others, because it was unspiritual and unloving, and i was very concerned about not being unspiritual or unloving.  Part of it was an "image" attachment issue (and wanting to be liked and accepted by others or the group).

   But his example has taught me that, if we're coming from the right place and inner intent, that sometimes it's ok and even helpful to speak up and to critically point out things, as long as you aren't holding personal dislike related to selfishness and such reactions within and speaking from that. 

  Particularly those that try to limit humanity sometimes need to be called out on, because it's not like we haven't had enough of that from day one of birth.  We are effectively hypnotized starting from birth that we are so limited in so many ways.  One such limit facilitating teaching and belief is that we can't possibly and truly know about the nonphysical and shouldn't even try. 

   A greater knowledge of same, if with living the ideal of PUL, would set us free.  That's what those with the most material power and influence in this world (and those that work for these), least want and why they spend so much energy, time, and thought both unconsciously and at times consciously to keep others stuck within limiting beliefs and systems which make it hard for a human to free themselves.  Part of it is that they are just stuck and unaware themselves, but in some cases, for example aspects of the U.S. gov, are quite aware of nonphysical reality and certain issues relating to same.

  When someone really starts to free themselves, and then endeavors to free others, they are definitely noticed by tptb, and often if they are a really effective threat in this, they like Yeshua, are subjected to attempts to shut them up and stop them.  If it's someone like Bruce Moen, whose not quite a force or power as Yeshua but still having an effect, often they are content with just using words and psychological warfare tactics of slandering or misleading from.  But they know they will have bigger fish to fry someday.

  What a world we live in!   ;)

recoverer,
"The manner in which Rondelle and Don (Berserk) like to question how much PUL people have is a bit much, especially since they don't express PUL as they do so. As far as I'm concerned you might as well tell a person they don't have a soul."

That's not even close to saying someone doesn't have a soul, but it's perhaps how you justify your reaction?

Justin,
"Then what the hey is he doing here?"

I've read you write about impersonal as being a neat and tidy way of communicating, yet this has turned out to be not only a witch hunt, but a personal one. So you disagree with each other, but is your water test really necessary?

Volu:

In a way this started when people were talking about the possibility that 911 was an inside job.  If this is so, it's not a joke, it's a serious matter.  Nevertheless, as opposed to taking part in the discussion in a serious manner,  Rondelle and Don resorted to saying things such as people are Bush haters (What do such baseless claims prove?).

I suppose Justin feels strongly enough about this issue to say how he felt about what Rondelle did.  After being on this forum for a quite a while, this is the first time Justin has spoken to Rondelle in such a way. Therefore, I don't believe it is a matter of Justin being on a witch hunt.

I added my two cents because I believe it was a bit much for Rondelle to respond to Justin's post in the way he did, because there is some truth to what Justin wrote.

If Rondelle doesn't want to be called out for making sardonic statements and to a lesser extent trying to put down the validity of what Bruce Moen wrote, then perhaps he shouldn't have put himself in a position to be called out. Perhaps the same is true when Rondelle and Don go after people with that PUL business. They use it as a weapon to put people down.

"Nevertheless, as opposed to taking part in the discussion in a serious manner,  Rondelle and Don resorted to saying things such as people are Bush haters (What do such baseless claims prove?)."

Nothing, and hate is too strong a projection, but still it's their beliefs and.. so?

"Therefore, I don't believe it is a matter of Justin being on a witch hunt."

Being buddies is a good thing, however one could end up sticking up for each other every time the other part.. blah blah. Easy pickings. But reading Justin's previous post in this thread isn't a witch hunt of course, but it reminds me of one, I'm just saying as the saying goes.

"Perhaps the same is true when Rondelle and Don go after people with that PUL business. They use it as a weapon to put people down."

It's a valid observation, dude. It's thrown around a lot in this forum and yet unconditional is what it is.

recoverer wrote on May 11^th, 2011 at 3:56pm:

If Rondelle doesn't want to be called out for making sardonic statements and to a lesser extent trying to put down the validity of what Bruce Moen wrote, then perhaps he shouldn't have put himself in a position to be called out.

I would like to clarify something re: what you wrote above.  There is nothing wrong with questioning an outer source, a teacher, etc or even speaking critically about same if you really disagree with something.

  That's not the issue here for me.  For me it's the duplicity of on one hand trying to appear supportive and positive about a source, and then on the other hand partaking in subtle and manipulative undermining of it at other times. 

  I've had disagreements with some people here at different points, including the also sometimes quite sarcastic and belittling Volu, but at least i know where i stand with these folk and while i may disagree (even strongly at times) with them or their approach, beliefs, etc. or vice versa i sense basically sincerity there (even under the sarcasm).  Because i feel that sincerity, i can still respect where they are coming from even if i don't fully understand it or agree with it myself.

   I just don't get that sincere feeling with Rondele, which is quite unusual here for me.  I sense hiddenness, secrecy, and cover.  I used the word duplicity, and that about sums it up.

  I will leave us with a bit of wisdom that Rondele should appreciate. 

  The man himself on foolin ""There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."   Former Pres. Bush Jr—Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

Justin,

"I've had disagreements with some people here at different points, including the also sometimes quite sarcastic and belittling Volu, but at least i know where i stand with these folk and while i may disagree (even strongly at times) with them or their approach, beliefs, etc. or vice versa i sense basically sincerity there (even under the sarcasm).  Because i feel that sincerity, i can still respect where they are coming from even if i don't fully understand it or agree with it myself."

Thanks, I'm a proud father of sarcasm. If it helps it's not personal and so maybe the humor can be seen. As for feeling little, can't help ya Lilliput.

My perception is that ambivalence can come into play with any active poster here, but haven't seen the more sinister sibling, duplicity, unless that means being straightforward.

Isn't this thread to some extent about hurt feelings?

wrote on May 12^th, 2011 at 1:53am:

[quote author=7A6D6B677E6D7A6D7A080 link=1305092951/5#5 date=1305143811] Justin; [quote] For me it's the duplicity of on one hand trying to appear supportive and positive about a source, and then on the other hand partaking in subtle and manipulative undermining of it at other times.

Justin;
Impo you just nail it. It's not the first and not the last and we all know who they are.

Nice read to start your morning..:)
PUL

 

Romain,
"Impo you just nail it. It's not the first and not the last and we all know who they are."

Those last six words do have hiddenness, secrecy, and cover in them. The same can be said about wearing PUL like a medal to posts, and appear supportive of it, yet come up with .. that, and be subtle and maniPULative undermining it. Nailed it?

Romain wrote on May 12^th, 2011 at 12:40pm:

Justin; Impo you just nail it. It's not the first and not the last and we all know who they are. Nice read to start your morning..:) PUL

  Hi Romain,

  Sometimes it's hard to know if one is doing the right thing when speaking strongly about another.  When i first posted my original personal and critical reply to Rondele, i didn't feel completely good about it because i was worried i that i could be wrong about him and what i had said. 

    I'm a pretty intuitive person, but it's one thing being possibly wrong about a unseen picture in an envelope or what not and another being off in criticism of another because of it's potential emotional effect on them if one is wrong.   In other words, even though sometimes i'm very frank and direct here, i don't like hurting individuals feelings. 

  Anyways, suffice it to say, i've seen enough indications at this point, to be fairly certain that my intuitive sense was not off about this issue.

  In any case, it seems like lately i've been spending far too much energy in disagreement here, between this and the food, drink, etc. thread. 

Too much of that, also isn't helpful to the forum or to the purpose or intention of Bruce's work. 

  Anyways, thanks for the reply and letting me know what you feel and think about this issue.