Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Plagiarism on the road to success


Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Mike said:

I've hardly had time, this being a big family day, to even read all the posts of the past several days, but someday I will. If you have a burning point to make, please repeat it.

Meanwhile I had some fun just now.

There’s a certain warming rhetoric satisfaction when my opponents in a debate descend to ad hominem tactics like “liar liar pants on fire”  and “you don’t write clear enough” and that I am wiggling about away from topic.

 

That's disappointing Mike. I HAVE repeated, repeatedly, the point about how the communication process works and that when you resort to telling people that they read you wrong, you fail at communicating YOUR message.

My intent is to give you graceful a way out of the predicaments you put yourself in. [see Carnegie, How to Win Friends and Influence People, Part Four, chapter Five]  

One chapter title is "When you're wrong admit it quickly and emphatically." [Part Two, chapter three]

IF your intent is to get people to take your message seriously, wouldn't you have to get honest about your communication mistakes and problems?

You've recorded your "thesis" on GSC but you've refused all efforts to get you to clarify your points.

Are you an expert communicator? Haven't you admitted that you're not? When you refuse legitimate feedback by saying the reader read you wrong, you're missing a wonderful opportunity to LEARN how to communicate better.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 551
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Just for the record - I’ve mentioned this before - the definition for “hard hitting” as often associated with tough journalists who do their job - is uncompromisingly direct and honest, especially in

Mike, what are you talking about??  I think there is a lot of "good," here at the GSC.  For example, if you go back, and read the threads, many people have revealed the real TWI, not the one in your i

Hey Mike: Don’t flatter yourself with your fantasy that I am your “opponent” in some grand “debate”. I am NOT your opponent. I feel deep sorrow and pity for you, not opposition. I have already to

2 minutes ago, Mike said:

John Juedes side by side comparisons show tbe truth .(from man’s unbelieving point of view)

Mike, give me a break. Point of view has nothing to do with it. It's right there in black and white. Did you even look at the comparisons?  Wierwille clearly copied that material, almost word for word. Suppose the subject had been farm machinery or furniture repair, would it have been copying then or would that just be a "point of view"?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike said:

I vaguely remember all three issues mentioned above, but the June 1971 article seems most familiar and I think I made my GSR detector from this article.  Try it yourself. It is a trip to see plants as active creatures. I no longer make the leap (since 1972) that this activity indicates consciousness.  Mosquitoes are active, but how conscious are they?

Boy! What a trip down memory lane!

Sweet!

tinfoilhatday-featured.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Mike:

Don’t flatter yourself with your fantasy that I am your “opponent” in some grand “debate”. I am NOT your opponent. I feel deep sorrow and pity for you, not opposition. I have already told you, again, way back on page 11, that trying to engage you in a serious discussion about anything TWIt’n’Dic is like administering medicine to the dead. ALL your “research”, “manifestos”, “statements”, “theses”, “TVTs”, “discussions” of 40-50 years ago, “learning” from Popular Science and Popular Mechanics, lie detector “experts”, quotes from “old grads”, your “theories” (e.g. “the pure evil theory” etc.), transcripts from 53 year old SNS tapes, quotes from piffle, elena’s post-sex book about dictor paul and his drunken bullshit hustle to get into her hippie underpants, revisionist wierwille-worshipping tripe, revisionist B.G., Stiles, Kenyon, Bullinger stohrees, quotes from various syllabi and lullabies, and overt lying, dealing one unicorn fantasy after another from your never ending shue of bullshit, is totally self-absorbed and IRRATIONAL. Irrational, as in illogical, unreasonable, insane. 

I for one, really wish the good-hearted GSCers here trying to dialogue reasonably with you would simply stop doing so. Go down to Doctrinal and pontificate your “ancient”, “overlooked” garbage there. No one should bother answering you any where else, as it leads to an incredible waste of byte-space which YOU don’t pay for! The members and Paw pay for it. Stop wasting our money and bytespace outside of doctrinal. I implore my fellow GSCers to refrain from posting to Mike or responding to him anywhere but in the Doctrinal Forums. Then, folks who really want to keep dealing with Mike’s illnesses publicly know exactly where to find him, newbies don’t have to read his garbage in Open, Way Int’l, or Offshoots Forums, and we need only see it if we choose to. Saves everyone a helluva lot of time and agita!

So Mike......this will be THE last post from me to or about YOU anywhere at the GSC outside of Doctrinal Forums. I’m old enough to spot irrational bullshit, psychiatric pathologies, and insane behavior, to know I’ve had my fill of them for this lifetime. This is no ad hominem attack Mikey. This is simply a fact-filled, reasonable assessment of your mental state as evidenced by your rambling, nearly incoherent “essays”, along with your erratic and annoying posting behavior. You’re a gentle soul. Thanks for keeping yourself in Doctrinal. Happy Resurrection Day. See ya in Doctrinal only. No more “BeHappy troops” up here. Bye now.

Edited by DontWorryBeHappy
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DontWorryBeHappy said:

Hey Mike:

Don’t flatter yourself with your fantasy that I am your “opponent” in some grand “debate”. I am NOT your opponent. I feel deep sorrow and pity for you, not opposition. I have already told you, again, way back on page 11, that trying to engage you in a serious discussion about anything TWIt’n’Dic is like administering medicine to the dead. ALL your “research”, “manifestos”, “statements”, “theses”, “TVTs”, “discussions” of 40-50 years ago, “learning” from Popular Science and Popular Mechanics, lie detector “experts”, quotes from “old grads”, your “theories” (e.g. “the pure evil theory” etc.), transcripts from 53 year old SNS tapes, quotes from piffle, elena’s post-sex book about dictor paul and his drunken .... hustle to get into her hippie underpants, revisionist wierwille-worshipping tripe, revisionist B.G., Stiles, Kenyon, Bullinger stohrees, quotes from various syllabi and lullabies, and overt lying, dealing one unicorn fantasy after another from your never ending shue of ...., is totally self-absorbed and IRRATIONAL. Irrational, as in illogical, unreasonable, insane. 

I for one, really wish the good-hearted GSCers here trying to dialogue reasonably with you would simply stop doing so. Go down to Doctrinal and pontificate your “ancient”, “overlooked” garbage there. No one should bother answering you any where else, as it leads to an incredible waste of byte-space which YOU don’t pay for! The members and Paw pay for it. Stop wasting our money and bytespace outside of doctrinal. I implore my fellow GSCers to refrain from posting to Mike or responding to him anywhere but in the Doctrinal Forums. Then, folks who really want to keep dealing with Mike’s illnesses publicly know exactly where to find him, newbies don’t have to read his garbage in Open, Way Int’l, or Offshoots Forums, and we need only see it if we choose to. Saves everyone a helluva lot of time and agita!

So Mike......this will be THE last post from me to or about YOU anywhere at the GSC outside of Doctrinal Forums. I’m old enough to spot irrational ...., psychiatric pathologies, and insane ...., to know I’ve had my fill of them for this lifetime. This is no ad hominem attack Mikey. This is simply a fact-filled, reasonable assessment of your mental state as evidenced by your rambling, nearly incoherent “essays”, along with your erratic and annoying posting behavior. You’re a gentle soul. Thanks for keeping yourself in Doctrinal. Happy Resurrection Day. See ya in Doctrinal only. No more “BeHappy troops” up here. Bye now.

DWBH, excellent post!:wave:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, DontWorryBeHappy said:

I for one, really wish the good-hearted GSCers here trying to dialogue reasonably with you would simply stop doing so. Go down to Doctrinal and pontificate your “ancient”, “overlooked” garbage there.

There’s some really good advice Mike. Hopefully you’ll heed the plea. :wave:

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I too, wholeheartedly agree that this topic should end HERE AND NOW. Mike seems to be having a field day while we continue answering the fool according to his folly --- which many of us realize isn't the wisest thing to do --- but we do it anyway, don't we? I'm done playing the fool for Mike's sake! :asdf:

Let us then forsake this 21-page Topic and answer Mike from the Doctrinal Section instead. This is my last post concerning Mike in Plagiarism on the road to success:rolleyes:

Edited by spectrum49
grammar
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Rocky said:

lots of things :)

Hi Rocky,

Your post is in black, my response in blue. 

That's disappointing Mike. I HAVE repeated, repeatedly, the point about how the communication process works and that when you resort to telling people that they read you wrong, you fail at communicating YOUR message.

Rocky, I appreciate your patience.  

I do try to do the kind of polished writing, and sometimes succeed. But most of the time here I am swamped with responses, lots of emotional hits, many spurious like sex on a plagiarism thread, and the urge to get my points down quickly overrules my desire to be polished.

As a little thought experiment, suppose I were to go back and re-write all my posts just right in this thread. Do you think that such a reworking would get any different a set of responses than I already have posted?  I don’t. People here (seem to me) to be hell bent on discrediting me at all cost. I don’t sense a willingness to change if new data is presented to them. 

***

NOTHING on plagiarism here is new to me, except a few interesting nuances that Bolshevek has posted pretty consistently. That’s why I landed here, after thinking I could retire. I was tempted. It’s not my fault. He did it. (I’m totally kidding here on this last set of sentences.)  

NOTHING on plagiarism here is really new to me, because (for one reason) I have thought about it for years and incorporated VPW’s thoughts on it from 1965 and 1972 for over 45 years.  I can change my mind, but why?  

(boy oh boy, target  shooters are loading up on Mike-ego ammunition here)

And the points made to me here are NOT beefed up (to me) with more and more sex references (a truly difficult subject; much more difficult than plagiarism), more and more attacks on the good parts of VPW’s character, more and more Pure Evil model stuffed into the arguments. 

Those tactics just reveal to me the desperation of posters who see new info coming from me all the time, and their determination to never listen with an ear to hear the ideas or logic.

Why don’t you castigate the writing style used in those unseemly and juvenile posts?  

***


If I take the time to polish everything, then my already poor ratio of “responded to”  to “unresponded to” posts goes down more, and a set of complaints differing with your polish suggestion come rolling in. 

Why should I use and polish my communication skills when communication seems to me to be the LAST thing most want to do here.  Most want me either outright banned, or so publicly humiliated that I run home crying while lurking readers laugh it all off.

I sense in you and a few others (at times) a willingness to communicate. A stellar example of that was where I had stated that VPW’s stealing (man’s view) of the  material guaranteed WE could “steal” it from TWI and they’d be afraid to prosecute due to the potential public exposure that their “ownership” of the material had the same taint (man’s view) as those they’d like to prosecute. 

I have offered that idea here about 5 times, about 2 in the recent year. One poster here (having not read my post on this oddly funny twist for understanding, but for targets only,  had trashed it along with others. In the process he posted the nearly exact oddly funny twist idea in different wording.  

I pointed this out to him almost immediately, and he again only looked for targets, and in the process AGAIN trashed my idea, right after he had posted the same idea with different wording. 

YOU, Sir Rocky, valiantly came to my rescue, and pretty quickly, seeing the equivalence stated quite well, you told said poster that he had missed that equivalence. 

I wish others had the ability and willingness to that. That tells me there’s something in you that values the truth and all the facts (not just useful ones), and it overruled your desire to win the debate.  I think that was very commendable. I don’t think many here have learned that kind of noble behavior yet. 

Actually, as I lounge in this Thankful Room I see Twinky. She did this once, I think, but my mind is a little jammed with mentally-noted posts right now, and I can’t remember the context. I think I joked that I’d like to hire her, should I win the Lottery or something. And I see Ralph over there, too. He’s verifying my report of the youngsters on fire with the Word on Long Island in the early 70s. 

***

I am slowly learning that the same blinding snowstorm of posts that overwhelm me also overwhelms all of you folks.  I find that many here do not read all my posts and points even addressed to them individually, let alone read all my posts to others on identical subjects.  But how do I deal with this new learning that is happening?  One way is to complain that what I posted directly was not fully or well read. Another is to post the same idea over and over many times.  This volume preclude polishing them all.

I’m also slowly (too slowly) learning that there no way I can reach the bottom of my response list. I have, once in a while with a flurry of my own responding, answernearly post and strong point, and I finish in the wee hours thinking:  

“Wow! I finished! Now I can go into that promised (after my big apology for blitzkrieg posting of many pages and passages of forgotten PFAL)  retirement where I only post once in a while and far away from the About the Way forum.”

Then the next day my flurry of finishing-up posts triggers an avalanche of new posts, then I complain, my hand is slapped, I  see many distortions, and the whole process starts another cycle. 

***

I’m slowly learning that all I can do is pound out the posts that I think can someday be re-formatted into a manifesto, after I win the Lottery and get the spare time needed for that. This is a fantasy, and it will probably never get done. 

But I do see the not-so-fantasy laced possibility of future posters (or lurkers) with the same integrity you displayed when you spotted and pointed out that my post on the oddly-funny-twist idea was equivalent to the other poster’s idea.  You read both with understanding and were able to spot that. I think many of my points are this way; not the equivalence part, but the reading for understanding verse for targets.

***

If you really want to see me polish, then the crazy volume of nasty distractions and lack of understanding must decrease.  Maybe you can PM some people when you see them miss my points again or use nasty distractions. 

Did you notice the high volume of ad hominem posts in the past few days outright calling me a liar in many ways?  Please speak to those who are guilty, help reduce the volume of craziness, and then posters are capable of reading my responses to other people, and take more time to post in response to me. Maybe you can PM the guilty, and avoid public ego conflicts. 

***

I would love to get into the sex issues someday, but there the hot buttons are too sensitive here. The Pure Evil model installs triggers in many and if I mention sex at all, the triggers fire and my point is totally lost in the shuffle.  The much greater energy and hurt on this topic totally preclude any discussion on sex.  

***

There are a few things I would like to post that is new info for nearly all here, but I dare not post in this atmosphere.  I have told some of this to one poster here in PMs, and I’m wanting to post it public, but I can’t. It’s too delicate for my dismal understanding of sex to handle well, and it’s too enraging for those who the pains well know (first-hand, second-hand, third-hand).  

This would be VERY new knowledge to most here, and hence should provoke quiet listening and pondering and maybe even some position shifting.  (Should? Yeah, right! WONT)

***

None of the sex tragedies are new me, so I feel justified in standing my ground silently.  

My first encounter with a victim was in 1978. She was a best friend, so it was perplexing to say the least. I took her side strongly at first, until I slowly realized that VPW had (with the film class only) had set Long Island on fire with the Word, greatly benefiting her and me with the Word like no “men of cloth” ever had or ever could do.  

Sure I thought VPW was messed up on this, but she too always had messed up things in her life. She had blessed relatively no one with the Word and didn’t want to. She seemed more interested in tearing me away than in getting her heart right. I had to make a choice and I voted in favor of being on the alert and continuing the green card push as long as I saw it still benefiting new people. It did; all the way up to around 1986, and it tapered off pretty fast. I was out then with my copies of the class. I could see that LCM had taken the issue to a new level.

I continued to take notes on all this for 10 years. In 1987 I saw the Scheonheit Adultery paper for the first time, and saw it’s similarity to what I had already worked quite a bit. I had heard stories in the 70s as third hand rumors. When I was a twig leader in 1980 my twig and I had worked the KJV on adultery and fornication and came up with a crude 5 year precursor to the Sheonheit paper.  

I attended all of John Lynn’s visits here in SD from 1988 to 1997.  I heard all the stories from him and more. I heard stories from grads at those meetings.   I made friends in PMs here with several outraged women, and we became friends, some good friends, because they saw my heart in those PMs.  I opened up to them.

***

Rocky, how many here do you think could see my heart here if I exposed it. None of the target seekers, that’s for sure. They would go wild. This exact thing happened around 2004 when I dared to try it. I regretted it. 

I don’t see the use in spending lots more time here slowly polishing all my posts. I’m trying hard in this one, but I know it’s a bit of a stream of consciousness style. 

Maybe someday I’ll go back and polish them all for my old folks home amusement, my memoirs or manifesto, or for a miraculous PFAL revival. 

Right now I mostly want to post what I think is new to most here, even if outrageous. I have had the luxury of pondering these things for decades. Don’t ask me why, it just happened that way. I did not volunteer to be the recipient of tons of stuff that is relatively unseen here, even after is posted. Target seekers merely turn on their blinders. I think you all deserve to hear (not shoot at) the yet unheard items to complement and make more full your positions.

***


My intent is to give you graceful a way out of the predicaments you put yourself in. [see Carnegie, How to Win Friends and Influence People, Part Four, chapter Five] 


One chapter title is "When you're wrong admit it quickly and emphatically." [Part Two, chapter three]

.I have admitted to some errors; can you point out 3 times where a poster (or better yet yourself) has quickly admitted TO ME an error made in debating me?  I can’t think of any. It would be refreshing and new info to me if you can find 2 of them, and even one would point out to me someone I want to pay better attention to in the future.


IF your intent is to get people to take your message seriously, wouldn't you have to get honest about your communication mistakes and problems?

You've recorded your "thesis" on GSC but you've refused all efforts to get you to clarify your points.

 

. I think I clarify many that get trodden underfoot.  

I clarified my super abbreviated account of the lie detectors.  I posted the expanded version to show it fit with the abbreviated version. Did anyone compare them?  I think it was rejected without comparison by most. 

Will I see any retractions after I posted the Popular Electronics links? Will anone follow the links?  Will anyone go back and stitch it all together and see that I really did play with some exotic things?  I’m not holding my breath.  Both polish, clarifications, and retractions mean nothing to the target shooters.



Are you an expert communicator? Haven't you admitted that you're not? When you refuse legitimate feedback by saying the reader read you wrong, you're missing a wonderful opportunity to LEARN how to communicate better.

.When it’s not a battle, and not overwhelming volume, and I have lots of time, I can do better than what I have done so far. Help me reduce the volume of target shooting and maybe that can happen faster.

One strategy I am learning is to stand back for a day or two, let myself calm down, and let the flurry of outstanding posts linger with no response for a time to let the posters calm down.  

I’m open for more ideas here.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DontWorryBeHappy said:

...

 

 

I thought this thread WAS in Doctrinal!  I think it got moved.  Maybe it was in Open.

I don't mind posting in Doctoral.  

HEY!  Maybe that would reduce the volume and I could get some polishing done.  GOOD IDEA DWBH!   Or was that MY idea? Gosh!  Who's idea WAS it? Who might have the rights to it in a copyright court.

I am NOT joking here. I am speaking by serious analogy. Attention: Bolshevek!

I first noticed this oddity and some flimsiness in concepts of intellectual property and plagiarism when I was a Junior in High School.  Several times someone would say something serious. It would be misunderstood, and then seriously responded to. The response would be HILARIOUS!  But who gets the credit?  The originator of the beginning of the joke or the mistaker and their response?  

I pondered this for years even before 1972, because I wanted to be a writer for Johnny Carson.

My earlier, milder claim to have been thinking on plagiarism in 1972 was what sparked the Popular Electronics pile on. 

Now I will claim to have been pondering these things since 1966.  Thanks!  I already knew this, but how was I to post it?   You helped me DWBH, so maybe I owe you royalties when my manifesto hits the bookstores?

But all seriousness aside folks (Steve Allen 1957) how can I contribute dollar money to GreaseSpot? Summer is coming fast and my Winter poverty mode is ending. 

This is the only TWI-related place where a great deal of free speech is offered, even sometimes when it outrages, but is still legal.  I think you are right, and I should pay my way.  Post an address and to whom I should address the check.  What is a normal offering per year?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Mike said:

Hi Rocky,

Your post is in black, my response in blue. 

That's disappointing Mike. I HAVE repeated, repeatedly, the point about how the communication process works and that when you resort to telling people that they read you wrong, you fail at communicating YOUR message.

Rocky, I appreciate your patience.  

I do try to do the kind of polished writing, and sometimes succeed. But most of the time here I am swamped with responses, lots of emotional hits, many spurious like sex on a plagiarism thread, and the urge to get my points down quickly overrules my desire to be polished.

As a little thought experiment, suppose I were to go back and re-write all my posts just right in this thread. Do you think that such a reworking would get any different a set of responses than I already have posted?  I don’t. People here (seem to me) to be hell bent on discrediting me at all cost. I don’t sense a willingness to change if new data is presented to them. 

***

NOTHING on plagiarism here is new to me, except a few interesting nuances that Bolshevek has posted pretty consistently. That’s why I landed here, after thinking I could retire. I was tempted. It’s not my fault. He did it. (I’m totally kidding here on this last set of sentences.)  

NOTHING on plagiarism here is really new to me, because (for one reason) I have thought about it for years and incorporated VPW’s thoughts on it from 1965 and 1972 for over 45 years.  I can change my mind, but why?  

(boy oh boy, target  shooters are loading up on Mike-ego ammunition here)

And the points made to me here are NOT beefed up (to me) with more and more sex references (a truly difficult subject; much more difficult than plagiarism), more and more attacks on the good parts of VPW’s character, more and more Pure Evil model stuffed into the arguments. 

Those tactics just reveal to me the desperation of posters who see new info coming from me all the time, and their determination to never listen with an ear to hear the ideas or logic.

Why don’t you castigate the writing style used in those unseemly and juvenile posts?  

***


If I take the time to polish everything, then my already poor ratio of “responded to”  to “unresponded to” posts goes down more, and a set of complaints differing with your polish suggestion come rolling in. 

Why should I use and polish my communication skills when communication seems to me to be the LAST thing most want to do here.  Most want me either outright banned, or so publicly humiliated that I run home crying while lurking readers laugh it all off.

I sense in you and a few others (at times) a willingness to communicate. A stellar example of that was where I had stated that VPW’s stealing (man’s view) of the  material guaranteed WE could “steal” it from TWI and they’d be afraid to prosecute due to the potential public exposure that their “ownership” of the material had the same taint (man’s view) as those they’d like to prosecute. 

I have offered that idea here about 5 times, about 2 in the recent year. One poster here (having not read my post on this oddly funny twist for understanding, but for targets only,  had trashed it along with others. In the process he posted the nearly exact oddly funny twist idea in different wording.  

I pointed this out to him almost immediately, and he again only looked for targets, and in the process AGAIN trashed my idea, right after he had posted the same idea with different wording. 

YOU, Sir Rocky, valiantly came to my rescue, and pretty quickly, seeing the equivalence stated quite well, you told said poster that he had missed that equivalence. 

I wish others had the ability and willingness to that. That tells me there’s something in you that values the truth and all the facts (not just useful ones), and it overruled your desire to win the debate.  I think that was very commendable. I don’t think many here have learned that kind of noble behavior yet. 

Actually, as I lounge in this Thankful Room I see Twinky. She did this once, I think, but my mind is a little jammed with mentally-noted posts right now, and I can’t remember the context. I think I joked that I’d like to hire her, should I win the Lottery or something. And I see Ralph over there, too. He’s verifying my report of the youngsters on fire with the Word on Long Island in the early 70s. 

***

I am slowly learning that the same blinding snowstorm of posts that overwhelm me also overwhelms all of you folks.  I find that many here do not read all my posts and points even addressed to them individually, let alone read all my posts to others on identical subjects.  But how do I deal with this new learning that is happening?  One way is to complain that what I posted directly was not fully or well read. Another is to post the same idea over and over many times.  This volume preclude polishing them all.

I’m also slowly (too slowly) learning that there no way I can reach the bottom of my response list. I have, once in a while with a flurry of my own responding, answernearly post and strong point, and I finish in the wee hours thinking:  

“Wow! I finished! Now I can go into that promised (after my big apology for blitzkrieg posting of many pages and passages of forgotten PFAL)  retirement where I only post once in a while and far away from the About the Way forum.”

Then the next day my flurry of finishing-up posts triggers an avalanche of new posts, then I complain, my hand is slapped, I  see many distortions, and the whole process starts another cycle. 

***

I’m slowly learning that all I can do is pound out the posts that I think can someday be re-formatted into a manifesto, after I win the Lottery and get the spare time needed for that. This is a fantasy, and it will probably never get done. 

But I do see the not-so-fantasy laced possibility of future posters (or lurkers) with the same integrity you displayed when you spotted and pointed out that my post on the oddly-funny-twist idea was equivalent to the other poster’s idea.  You read both with understanding and were able to spot that. I think many of my points are this way; not the equivalence part, but the reading for understanding verse for targets.

***

If you really want to see me polish, then the crazy volume of nasty distractions and lack of understanding must decrease.  Maybe you can PM some people when you see them miss my points again or use nasty distractions. 

Did you notice the high volume of ad hominem posts in the past few days outright calling me a liar in many ways?  Please speak to those who are guilty, help reduce the volume of craziness, and then posters are capable of reading my responses to other people, and take more time to post in response to me. Maybe you can PM the guilty, and avoid public ego conflicts. 

***

I would love to get into the sex issues someday, but there the hot buttons are too sensitive here. The Pure Evil model installs triggers in many and if I mention sex at all, the triggers fire and my point is totally lost in the shuffle.  The much greater energy and hurt on this topic totally preclude any discussion on sex.  

***

There are a few things I would like to post that is new info for nearly all here, but I dare not post in this atmosphere.  I have told some of this to one poster here in PMs, and I’m wanting to post it public, but I can’t. It’s too delicate for my dismal understanding of sex to handle well, and it’s too enraging for those who the pains well know (first-hand, second-hand, third-hand).  

This would be VERY new knowledge to most here, and hence should provoke quiet listening and pondering and maybe even some position shifting.  (Should? Yeah, right! WONT)

***

None of the sex tragedies are new me, so I feel justified in standing my ground silently.  

My first encounter with a victim was in 1978. She was a best friend, so it was perplexing to say the least. I took her side strongly at first, until I slowly realized that VPW had (with the film class only) had set Long Island on fire with the Word, greatly benefiting her and me with the Word like no “men of cloth” ever had or ever could do.  

Sure I thought VPW was messed up on this, but she too always had messed up things in her life. She had blessed relatively no one with the Word and didn’t want to. She seemed more interested in tearing me away than in getting her heart right. I had to make a choice and I voted in favor of being on the alert and continuing the green card push as long as I saw it still benefiting new people. It did; all the way up to around 1986, and it tapered off pretty fast. I was out then with my copies of the class. I could see that LCM had taken the issue to a new level.

I continued to take notes on all this for 10 years. In 1987 I saw the Scheonheit Adultery paper for the first time, and saw it’s similarity to what I had already worked quite a bit. I had heard stories in the 70s as third hand rumors. When I was a twig leader in 1980 my twig and I had worked the KJV on adultery and fornication and came up with a crude 5 year precursor to the Sheonheit paper.  

I attended all of John Lynn’s visits here in SD from 1988 to 1997.  I heard all the stories from him and more. I heard stories from grads at those meetings.   I made friends in PMs here with several outraged women, and we became friends, some good friends, because they saw my heart in those PMs.  I opened up to them.

***

 

 

Rocky, how many here do you think could see my heart here if I exposed it. None of the target seekers, that’s for sure. They would go wild. This exact thing happened around 2004 when I dared to try it. I regretted it. 

I don’t see the use in spending lots more time here slowly polishing all my posts. I’m trying hard in this one, but I know it’s a bit of a stream of consciousness style. 

Maybe someday I’ll go back and polish them all for my old folks home amusement, my memoirs or manifesto, or for a miraculous PFAL revival. 

Right now I mostly want to post what I think is new to most here, even if outrageous. I have had the luxury of pondering these things for decades. Don’t ask me why, it just happened that way. I did not volunteer to be the recipient of tons of stuff that is relatively unseen here, even after is posted. Target seekers merely turn on their blinders. I think you all deserve to hear (not shoot at) the yet unheard items to complement and make more full your positions.

***


My intent is to give you graceful a way out of the predicaments you put yourself in. [see Carnegie, How to Win Friends and Influence People, Part Four, chapter Five] 


One chapter title is "When you're wrong admit it quickly and emphatically." [Part Two, chapter three]

.I have admitted to some errors; can you point out 3 times where a poster (or better yet yourself) has quickly admitted TO ME an error made in debating me?  I can’t think of any. It would be refreshing and new info to me if you can find 2 of them, and even one would point out to me someone I want to pay better attention to in the future.


IF your intent is to get people to take your message seriously, wouldn't you have to get honest about your communication mistakes and problems?

You've recorded your "thesis" on GSC but you've refused all efforts to get you to clarify your points.

 

 

 

. I think I clarify many that get trodden underfoot.  

I clarified my super abbreviated account of the lie detectors.  I posted the expanded version to show it fit with the abbreviated version. Did anyone compare them?  I think it was rejected without comparison by most. 

Will I see any retractions after I posted the Popular Electronics links? Will anone follow the links?  Will anyone go back and stitch it all together and see that I really did play with some exotic things?  I’m not holding my breath.  Both polish, clarifications, and retractions mean nothing to the target shooters.



Are you an expert communicator? Haven't you admitted that you're not? When you refuse legitimate feedback by saying the reader read you wrong, you're missing a wonderful opportunity to LEARN how to communicate better.

.When it’s not a battle, and not overwhelming volume, and I have lots of time, I can do better than what I have done so far. Help me reduce the volume of target shooting and maybe that can happen faster.

One strategy I am learning is to stand back for a day or two, let myself calm down, and let the flurry of outstanding posts linger with no response for a time to let the posters calm down.  

I’m open for more ideas here.

 

 

Mike, it's NOT about anyone else's mistakes. YOU have made it about you. EVEN IF I were to "castigate" anyone else, it would do nothing.

Your response (above in blue or purple, whichever it is) demonstrates that you are STILL resisting the notion that YOU and YOUR words are at issue.

Calming down doesn't seem to be helping you read for understanding, be meek, or learn anything.

When it’s not a battle, and not overwhelming volume, and I have lots of time, I can do better than what I have done so far. Help me reduce the volume of target shooting and maybe that can happen faster.

NO Mike, you've completely missed the point. The "battle" is between YOUR EARS. When YOU reduce the volume of your resistance to listening to what people are trying to say to you, you MIGHT learn something. Only THEN will you "do better."  Frankly those two sentences come across like you're trying to guilt me into bullying other GSC posters for you. 

IF you're genuinely open for more ideas, there's your answer.


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, spectrum49 said:

I too, wholeheartedly agree that this topic should end HERE AND NOW. Mike seems to be having a field day while we continue answering the fool according to his folly --- which we many of realize isn't the wisest thing to do --- but we do it anyway, don't we? I'm done playing the fool for Mike's sake! :asdf:

Let us then forsake this 21 page Topic and answer Mike from the Doctrinal Section instead. This is my last post concerning Mike in Plagiarism on the road to success:rolleyes:

To tell you the truth 49, I agree.  I am repeating myself here. If Bolshevek comes up with any more gems, I can just read them. I doubt if I can say any more.  Doctrinal sounds fine to me.  I got to put some serious time into taxes also. Thanks for the idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Rocky said:

Your response (above in blue or purple, whichever it is) demonstrates that you are STILL resisting the notion that YOU and YOUR words are at issue.
 

I think me and my style are only a minor issue. 

Posting what has not been seen well here was the big issue to me.

But for 3 posts now, I am willing to quote Superman and say "My job's done here." and fly away  into Doctrinal after my taxes are done.

Edited by Mike
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mike said:

I think me and my style are only a minor issue. 

Posting what has not been seen well here was the big issue to me.

But for 3 posts now, I am willing to quote Superman and say "My job's done here." and fly away  into Doctrinal after my taxes are done.

It's not style, it's a question of substance or lack thereof.

If you think you've accomplished anything on par with Superman, then I'd have to agree with DWBH about your state of mind.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spectrum49 said:

I too, wholeheartedly agree that this topic should end HERE AND NOW. Mike seems to be having a field day while we continue answering the fool according to his folly --- which we many of realize isn't the wisest thing to do --- but we do it anyway, don't we? I'm done playing the fool for Mike's sake! :asdf:

Let us then forsake this 21 page Topic and answer Mike from the Doctrinal Section instead. This is my last post concerning Mike in Plagiarism on the road to success:rolleyes:

49, another great post! I agree! :anim-smile:

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Rocky said:

It's not style, it's a question of substance or lack thereof.

If you think you've accomplished anything on par with Superman, then I'd have to agree with DWBH about your state of mind.

I was joking.  Don't tell Johnny Carson it bombed, ok?
Let's wrap it up here. I can say no more than I have.

Where and how  do I send money to Paw?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DontWorryBeHappy said:

Hey Mike:

Don’t flatter yourself with your fantasy that I am your “opponent” in some grand “debate”. I am NOT your opponent. I feel deep sorrow and pity for you, not opposition. I have already told you, again, way back on page 11, that trying to engage you in a serious discussion about anything TWIt’n’Dic is like administering medicine to the dead. ALL your “research”, “manifestos”, “statements”, “theses”, “TVTs”, “discussions” of 40-50 years ago, “learning” from Popular Science and Popular Mechanics, lie detector “experts”, quotes from “old grads”, your “theories” (e.g. “the pure evil theory” etc.), transcripts from 53 year old SNS tapes, quotes from piffle, elena’s post-sex book about dictor paul and his drunken .... hustle to get into her hippie underpants, revisionist wierwille-worshipping tripe, revisionist B.G., Stiles, Kenyon, Bullinger stohrees, quotes from various syllabi and lullabies, and overt lying, dealing one unicorn fantasy after another from your never ending shue of ...., is totally self-absorbed and IRRATIONAL. Irrational, as in illogical, unreasonable, insane. 

I for one, really wish the good-hearted GSCers here trying to dialogue reasonably with you would simply stop doing so. Go down to Doctrinal and pontificate your “ancient”, “overlooked” garbage there. No one should bother answering you any where else, as it leads to an incredible waste of byte-space which YOU don’t pay for! The members and Paw pay for it. Stop wasting our money and bytespace outside of doctrinal. I implore my fellow GSCers to refrain from posting to Mike or responding to him anywhere but in the Doctrinal Forums. Then, folks who really want to keep dealing with Mike’s illnesses publicly know exactly where to find him, newbies don’t have to read his garbage in Open, Way Int’l, or Offshoots Forums, and we need only see it if we choose to. Saves everyone a helluva lot of time and agita!

So Mike......this will be THE last post from me to or about YOU anywhere at the GSC outside of Doctrinal Forums. I’m old enough to spot irrational ...., psychiatric pathologies, and insane behavior, to know I’ve had my fill of them for this lifetime. This is no ad hominem attack Mikey. This is simply a fact-filled, reasonable assessment of your mental state as evidenced by your rambling, nearly incoherent “essays”, along with your erratic and annoying posting behavior. You’re a gentle soul. Thanks for keeping yourself in Doctrinal. Happy Resurrection Day. See ya in Doctrinal only. No more “BeHappy troops” up here. Bye now.

DWBH, thanks for that great post !

yeah I'm done here

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Rocky said:

It's not style, it's a question of substance or lack thereof.

If you think you've accomplished anything on par with Superman, then I'd have to agree with DWBH about your state of mind.

Rocky, Superman was a fictional character; Mike writes a lot of fiction.  Perhaps, in this one case, he has a good point! LMAO!:jump:

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Mike said:

I was joking.  Don't tell Johnny Carson it bombed, ok?
Let's wrap it up here. I can say no more than I have.

Where and how  do I send money to Paw?

 

Look for the Donate button at the top of every page and every forum section.

That will take you to PayPal.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mike said:

If Bolshevik is similarly finished, maybe he would consent to close the thread here.

As far as I know you've changed the topic so much the thread got moved to a completely different forum.

 

The only evidence you've expressed as to why VPW's plagiarism should be given a pass or simple slap on the wrist is that YOU were blessed.  The same reasoning as any damned Wayfer.

Which is the same argument as saying you got drunk, unknowingly ran over an entire family, and should be let go because you were just having a good time.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

As far as I know you've changed the topic so much the thread got moved to a completely different forum.

 

The only evidence you've expressed as to why VPW's plagiarism should be given a pass or simple slap on the wrist is that YOU were blessed.  The same reasoning as any damned Wayfer.

Which is the same argument as saying you got drunk, unknowingly ran over an entire family, and should be let go because you were just having a good time.

 

Thank you, Bolshevik for your refreshing contributions here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Mike said:

When I worked in Tape Duplicating

Mike is right.  Sometimes there, right in the midst of reading through the details of his posts when you read them carefully, you come across a statement that just seems to out-shadow all the surrounding statements as to 'splaining things.

That, along with his touching empathetic account of the Vicster sexually molesting propositioning someone in his first class and Mikey giving him a pass because the girl had problems too and didn't do anything to move the Word.

For clarity sake, one does not "move the Word" with one's penis Mikey boy.

See you in Doctrinal, joust master.

 

Edited by chockfull
added a euphemism for Mike
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bolshevik said:

As far as I know you've changed the topic so much the thread got moved to a completely different forum.

 

The only evidence you've expressed as to why VPW's plagiarism should be given a pass or simple slap on the wrist is that YOU were blessed.  The same reasoning as any damned Wayfer.

Which is the same argument as saying you got drunk, unknowingly ran over an entire family, and should be let go because you were just having a good time.

 

 

I also thank you for your contributions Bolsh.  You have summarized the correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...