test

Don't have much time to write at the moment.. just wanted to say I understand that you are offended by the question I put to Ted C. Sorry about that, I thought it might be you.

No, there was nothing in your posts as Dreamspring that would lead me to believe you would disguise yourself. I just found the patterns the same and the question came to mind.

quote:

---

I have seen some of those who now loathe Lazaris speak up about the supposed manipulation fingerprince

---

Bullshit. I don't loathe Lazaris. I have been very clear that I have strong feelings about Lazaris conduct but haven't concluded anything about him. Talk about selective attention Chris.

As for the "supposed" manipulations of FP, You teach spiritual growth and you cannot recognize the textbook nature of his manipulations ?

How can you teach other people about growth if you don't recognize such garden variety passive aggression and manipulation ?

I don't have the time or interest in going back and highliting every little twist and turn in his posts, so dont expect that. You can just read them yourself.

quote:

---

and other pro-Lazaris poster)and how wrong that was. I have seen little on the other side. I haven't seen much in the way of defense of those with whom you may disagree but at the same time feel deserve respect. This is emblematic of what I have seen on this board from earliest days.

---

Oh Christ man, what the hell are you defending anyway? your beliefs? or your belief in somebody else?

Which has more relevance and value when you are being "real" with someone?

Jeremiah

I could have written the post you wrote.

Like you, I find it very difficult to imagine how Jach could put such intricate detailed work together in a seminar. Lazaris has said things to me that NO ONE knew. Plus the material has helped me inso many ways that are big and small.

Having said that, I find the behavior of CS and the cult like attributes to be troubling. This site has helped to give me some food for thought and I like the idea of spiritual independence.

Bluebird

There's so much going on in this thread that I didn't want your "Voice" to get lost!

I join Bluebird in welcoming you here. You bring a great deal to share, and I look forward to hearing much more from you!!

Thank you so much for writing so extensively about your perceptions and feelings. I truly agree with all you're saying!

This site has enabled me to sharpen my insights and perceptions and see through a great deal of the flim-flam that CS has perpetrated upon its followers. On some level, I feel that I knew this, but just didn't want to accept nor to believe it. However, as I began to see more and more objectively, things began to become rather crystal clear!!

Again, welcome! I look forward to hearing more!!

Crystal

I take you at your word that you and TedC are different people, but I also have wondered about it as Jeremiah said he has.

TedC arrived on our board in the hypnosis thread very much to support and defend you, full of judgements and opinions about me, yet I can find no indication from our logs that he ever read anything on the board prior to his arrival, including that thread. I have to admit that has kept me puzzled for sometime now, along with the fact that his pattern of posting, style, opinions, and agendas are so similar to yours.

Recognizing that logs don't tell the whole story, I have never brought this up, but since Jeremiah has, I thought it only fair to tell you that he isn't the only person who made this observation.

I realize that his statement of it, and probably mine is offensive to you, but maybe it's just best to get it out in the open and clear the air.

TedC and you have a very similar perspective on a lot of things, but most significantly you both seem to think that the amount of "support" one gets here is proof of something. I must admit that it has occurred to me that you have been here providing support for yourself under a different guise.

This is not an accusation Chris, just an honest statement as to what has been running through my mind and why.

I'm still trying to figure out what brought TedC here to our site, and why the logs show that he was on the site for about a minute and a half prior to posting his very strong opinions about how you were treated here and why.

I think if we evaluate the concept of "support" we can see that it has nothing to do with righness or wrongness. Once again,we can use Hitler as a dramatic example of misplaced support.

In my experience, people who are strong and secure in their opinions and beliefs don't need any support whatsoever to validate them.

As I pointed out earlier to Helena, I think that security and strength are two aspects which serve to define a belief. That which we feel we need to convince others of is, in my opinion, not really a belief, especially on issues of spirituality.

It would be nice if people could be secure enough to state their opinions and allow for the disagreement of others without feeling the need to create "sides" and "polls" to serve as proof of their points. All that just serves as an unpleasant distraction, especially when the tactic is used to discredit the person, rather than their opinions.

I find that a many people have a very hard time making that distinction, both in their
dissent from the opinions of others, and in having their own opinions disputed.

It's nice to see you here Chris. I think that inspite of our differences in opinion you have added a lot to our discussions here.

Now, if we could just get straight on the difference between a personal attack and an attack on an opinion, I think we'd all be well served.

Katie

quote:

---

I wasn't "preaching", I was speaking candidly about my personal grievances with this board as well as to the issues that may make "those who lurk" uneasy about posting here.

---

I didn't see that Jeremiah was saying that you are preaching. He was pointing out that you have told us that you view yourself as a teacher, yet you seem to be able to recognize garden variety manipulation when you see it.

As to the comfort level of lurkers, I do hear from a number of lurkers, and their reasons for not posting are varied. It is not accurate of fair to come to any conclusion that it is because of any particular interactions that people choose not to post.

The two overriding reasons that I hear are are firstly that they are afraid of Con:Sin identifying them, and secondly that they find it hard to wade through all the personal stuff, and wish that there were more threads just devoted to sharing information.

Every time I have posted here asking lurkers to post, we have had a strong response. You or anyone else can make that request as well, maybe you'll solicit a response from different people than I would.

Katie

You wrote:

quote:

---

With Lazaris' guidance I healed my hiv+ status to hiv- without meds.

---

Congratulations! That's the first true miracle I've seen posted here.

You wrote:

quote:

---

At my first workshop (evening) - in a blending, Lazaris spoke to me IN DETAIL (YES TED, he said my First and Second name and then some!...and I didn't register with my 2nd name)...

---

Do you mean he spoke your full name aloud, or you heard it in your head? I've never heard them speak anyone's last name aloud in a blending. I would think that it would be an invasion of privacy. Would you really want the whole room to hear the personal stuff they say to you while identifying you by your full name?

You wrote:

quote:

---

...the rationals about "how Lazaris knows" posted on this site are insulting to me, when I attended this
event, all they had was my name and maybe my CC#.

---

Why is this insulting to you? I made a suggestion of how they might have known people's names in the crystal ceremony. Is it insulting to question a claim that has no empirical evidence and the validity of which determines whether or not people will allow this "being" into their subconscious. It's insulting to anyone to demand blind acceptence. It's also quite dangerous. BTW, if they had your CC#, they also had your last name.

You wrote:

quote:

---

... I've become a pretty good magician myself at this point, and when I think about it, I wouldn't want publicity when I pass either.

---

And your privacy should be respected. You didn't promote yourself as a leader of the New Age movement. You didn't use your dubious status to control people and fuck with their heads. At least I'm assuming you haven't done these things

You wrote:

quote:

---

Those who don't want to be when it's their time RUN Back....I know because most of my family is doing that, and I'm sorry that I see it here as well; and I'm wondering if I've run back a bit, and that's why Peny's dead in this reality.

---

Run back to what? I have no idea what you're talking about here. Please clarify.

Thanks for your response. I understand better from you and others what it is about fp that just doesn't go over. I think I see that it would be more valuable to post at the time rather than after the fact. Although I have sympathetic feelings towards him, I don't want to be cast as his defender.

Thanks for the observation on our previous exchange. Katie did make me realize my tone needs to better reflect how I wish to interact with people here.

Sorry for the offense I caused by the comment, "do you want to convert him?" It was off-handed and definitely not appropriate. I think you and I can be done with fingerprince at this point.

No, I am not dreamspring, although flattered that you would think there's a resemblance. I respect him a lot. I also respect you and your approach to L. I hope we can have further conversations in the future.

TedC

Good to see that you haven't disappeared! I appreciated your well-thought-out, respectful and illuminating posts and was afraid that the treatment you received here would lead to your exit. Glad to know that is not the case and I will look for your posts in the future.

I can assure you that Chris and I are two different people no matter what you're logs tell you. I was certainly here longer than a minute and a half before posting.

You wrote:

quote:

---

TedC arrived on our board in the hypnosis thread very much to support and defend you, full of judgements and opinions about me…

---

I didn't judge you on the hypnosis thread, I merely asked a question (that you didn't respond to). I also made the observation that you were not being respectful towards Chris. That observation was from the fact that you accused him of plagarism, you dismissed his credentials repeatedly and with great disdain, and also accused him of advertising, a blatant falsehood, and threatened to ban him on the basis of that falsehood. You also never offered any apologies for any of these actions.

quote:

---

TedC and you have a very similar perspective on a lot of things, but most significantly you both seem to think that the amount of "support" one gets here is proof of something.

---

Giving someone support is not done to bolster "proof." For me, it's an emotional response for someone I feel sympathetic with. I have seen you do it many times. No, people don't "need" support in order to believe in and discuss their ideas, but it feels good to have it and it feels good to offer it.

quote:

---

I'm still trying to figure out what brought TedC here to our site…

---

What brought me to your site is Lazaris discussions. I like L and like to hear discussions about his ideas. If that seems odd to you, I wonder why that is. I never went to the C:S forum but from what I have heard here, I'm glad I didn't. This site has definitely changed how I think about L. A fresh perspective is always helpful.

re: Support

quote:

---

I have seen you do it many times.

---

Do you mean that I agreed with someone?

I would be surprised if you could find any posts here where I stated that I was supporting someone. Maybe a process, a belief, an idea, but I don't play that "support" game, not in the way that you use it. It's too much like setting up teams or something, and I'm very opposed to that concept.

I would hope that we are all here supporting each other and our rights to think and speak.

In the Forum we always had these "me too" posts. Peny or one of the Gang would write a post and half the world would jump in to say nothing more than "I so agree with you!"
It made everyone I've ever spoken to about it sick.

So, I don't play that game here. I agree, disagree, or ignore. For the most part that has nothing whatsoever to do with supporting anyone or not.

Maybe this is the source of contention between you me and Chris, in that both of you seem to have a much different idea of what it means to disagree with someone. Evidently you see that as a lack of support for the PERSON.

There are lots of ideas, beliefs, and behaviors that I won't support, but I think the presence of this site is indication enough that I do support the rights of all to speak their minds, even when what they have to say is something nasty about me, or just plain foul and manipulative. That's the price we pay for our freedom, and the tag is as high or low as we decide it will be.

I think that's plenty of support, and it applies to all who post here, not just people whose opinions I like.

:}

Katie said:

quote:

---

Spirituality is to me the most sacred and precious part of us all. If you don't hear me going on about it very much, that's because I value it too much to subject it to public scrutiny on an internet message board.
My soul is not up for discussion or debate.

---

That's as far as I got while reading--but I just LOVE that Katie. That's how I feel too and it's so wonderful that there are other people who take it as seriously. Okay, I have to go study now.

See you soon.

Vicki

quote:

---

So, I don't play that game here. I agree, disagree, or ignore. For the most part that has nothing whatsoever to do with supporting anyone or not.

---

Well said. Praise the lord and amen to that.

Cheers,

The more I think about this support issue, wouldn't you think that it's a huge enough amount of support to show each other for us to stick up for each others RIGHTS?

Beyond that, I think any game of "support" is just that.

I think it's a hard concept for some people to get.

When you provide for people's fundamental human rights to freedom of belief, speech and expression, I think you are giving all due respect. To expect beyond that that no one should ever disagree or object to terrible behavior is infantile.

Talk about entitlement!

I hear the Jachzaris spin these days is how freedom without responsibility results in tyranny and entitlement or something like that. That indicates to me that they are reading on this board.

What does that mean anyway, freedom with responsibility? No one can force another to be responsible. As soon as you start doing that, then you are making rules and restricting freedom.

Fine for governments, parents and employers, but does this concept apply on a message board or within an allegedly unstructured spiritual group?

I think Jachzaris is trying to use the concept as a way to justify all the controls and rules Con:Sin is forever imposing on people. Jach defines the responsibility, then everyone lives up to it and feels real free. Oh yeah! Give me liberty or give me a sock to stick in Jach's mouth.

In this country we have agreed that we have the freedom to believe, think, and speak freely. Somehow Jachzaris seems to be trying to find a way around that.

I knew something was bugging me about that freedom with responsibility crap. I just got it.

One more mind control tactic.

Screw you Jach, I'm going home.

Katie

I'm not sure if this support issue is directed at me or not. I offered some support to fp based on the fact that I felt people were misinterpreting his motives. I mentioned your interaction with Chris on another thread as an example of such misinterpretation. My support for both these people seems to have brought up an issue for you. Is that true?

You wrote:

quote:

---

Maybe this is the source of contention between you me and Chris, in that both of you seem to have a much different idea of what it means to disagree with someone. Evidently you see that as a lack of support for the PERSON.

---

I never offer "me too" support. Chris and fp are eloquent enough without my intercession. When I do have something to add, it is to higlight a point that has not been addressed and that imo needs to be looked at.

quote:

---

this site is indication enough that I do support the rights of all to speak their minds...

---

quote:

---

...even when what they have to say is something nasty about me, or just plain foul and manipulative…

---

quote:

---

What does that mean anyway, freedom with responsibility? No one can force another to be responsible

---

Our whole system of law is based on the idea that people are responsible for their actions. On this board, I believe people are responsible for their words. Obviously there are those who will not take responsibility and I will not interact with those people. I do take responsibility. I see you as taking responsibility. That's why I choose to interact with you. Without the responsibility, our interchanges would be meaningless. You and I could say anything and what difference would it make? We may or may not believe what we say, who cares? I don't think that's the kind of board you want. I have seen you present many thoughtful arguments and reveal a lot of deep feelings that have made an impression on me. Obviously you choose to be responsible. I do not ask you to force it on anyone. But by making your choice, it is implicit that you don't make it selectively, that some words are responsible and others are not. All your words are responsible, as are all of mine.

Please let me know if I am being fair to you. I hope you can see that while you and I may have different ideas on certain issues, we are probably much closer on how we feel about treating other people. For me, it's a core issue of spirituality and one that I will continue to bring up when I see lines being crossed.

TedC

Thank you both for your support and reasonable interrogation..... I'm doing my best here as a newbie so put up with me if I post incorrectly.

Jeremiah

quote:

---

I never evaluated the reality of Lazaris on the blending "roll call". There were other more compelling thing that convinced me of Lazaris credibility.

---

quote:

---

Do you mean he spoke your full name aloud, or you heard it in your head? I've never heard them speak anyone's last name aloud in a blending. I would think that it would be an invasion of privacy. Would you really want the whole room to hear the personal stuff they say to you while identifying you by your full name?

---

I ended up at my first Lazaris Event because I purchased the "HS" book at a bookstore in NYC. Except for reading the book I was very naive, I wouldn't have even gone so far except a close friend liked the book way more than me. I have a nickname that's both unique and personal from my HS days (sorry, but the HS is a personal analogy for me), the nick is a combo for my first and middle (confirmation) names--not my first and last names as someone here has rudely suggested. The NICK is really quite unique and I doubt any one else has it at all. My middle (confirmation) name is not on any of my public records -no ss, bank accounts, cc's, etc. so... Lazaris spoke my nickname. For someone as "blue" as I was, it was a very good way to base my initial decisions about the reality of Lazaris. There's no way CS has spys that were personal friends of mine back then, I would've known and there's no way CS/J would've know my nick.

Steve;

quote:

---

How COULD Lazzyass POSSIBLY have known Timothy M.'s LAST NAME -- when Con:Sin *only* had his C-R-E-D-I-T C-A-R-D?!

---

Please shit in your pants in private when it's appropriate, I've been there done that, and I'm glad I don't shit in my pants at all anymore.

[b]TedV[/b

quote:

---

Why is this insulting to you? I made a suggestion of how they might have known people's names in the crystal ceremony. Is it insulting to question a claim that has no empirical evidence and the validity of which determines whether or not people will allow this "being" into their subconscious. It's insulting to anyone to demand blind acceptence. It's also quite dangerous.

---

I honestly empathize with you if you've had a bad experience with Lazaris and CS I think maybe I've done that with doctors. I can't really say I've had much experience with CS, but I have with Lazaris. Even though I've received much support from Lazaris, it's mostly been through blendings and meditation, not tapes,workshops etc. The drama of the "Live" at a workshop is what hooked me though. Each reading I had with them was scary to me, since the first it was so challenging that the info took much strength to get through, work on and integrate, and I questioned lots. You made a suggestion about how they "might" know peoples names etc, based on conjecture, not evidence.

If you understood "metaphysics" more than your own resentment (or whatever emotion it is) you wouldn't bring others into the issue.
Believe me, I had many questions when Lazaris first spoke my name, and many more when he told me things I didn't want to hear. I'm grateful I decided to try to understand, rather than reject everything; I think it saved my life, and I think that if I had found this site while really vunerable I would've died first. No doubt this site is reaching many who haven't reached their own conclusions and had their own experiences, why would you want them to have yours by presenting them on a silver platter?

To Quote Steve again 2 more times(even though I don't want to):

quote:

---

+Sebacious carnival snake oil "proof" noises+ -- here folks. A likely false positive test.

---

quote:

---

Tim, after TOO DAMN MANY Lazzyass Personal and Life "Readings", I -- along with so many here -- can tell you that your receptivity, reactivity (and gullability -- like mine..) was PRECISELY the reason you got those ongoing, expensive readings.

Lazzyass PARTICULARLY liked ..it's and Peny's ability to extend their personal ability to "star f*ck" -- as Ted so brilliantly puts it -- through my media / entertainment industry connections. Was he hoping to use your casual testimony to friends / new aquaintances for a chance to claim an "HIV cure" through the free advertising 'grapevine'?!

In my *very* personal experience and opinion -- Lazzyass and Con:Sin's capacity for multi-facited "fractured" USERY -- had *and has* ABSOLUTELY NO bounds what so ever. Jesus Christ. Just ask Shirley Maclaine.

---

Obviously, I was never involved as deeply with CS an J&P as you.

They don't know me from "atom", and never did.

I received my miracle (confirmed) 3 mos. after my last reading. CS, J&P don't even know if I'm still alive or not. I believe Lazaris does because he's still a part of my "circle" in meditation. The only reason I even know Peny died is because an old friend emailed me about it. should I wonder if she emailed them about me? I really doubt it but let me know.

You seem really connected to the "star f**ckd", why don't you ask Shirley and post her opinion here for all of us! I'm sure we'll believe you.

btw-- why do the celebrities need steve as a spokesperson?

To Ted, Kate, and the rest of the "gang":
Do you really believe this discussion can happen on the internet without personal attacks?

If so, do really think it'll do more good than harm?

I'd like proof of all of Steve's claims in his response to me (on page 4) and even then I'm not sure I'd discount my experience. I am relatively sure that those who don't make it to this post will discount me and possibly their own experiences by reading this site.

This board is just to much... It doesn't really promote FREEDOM of though/mind/speech at all.

Otherwise, members of EVERY cult would be able to post here with out the fear of a "gang" that'll pull the rug out at first chance. My brother was once in a cult, and I know that "pulling the rug out" is the most horrific way of reaching them, they don't get de-programmed, they just get re-programmed. It might be nicer for (unconscious) friends and family, but.....?

I'd like to stay here to discuss things with a few of you, but not sure I will... the energy here is not peachy clean at all, and honestly when discussing spirituality intimatly with others the stakes are just to high.

quote:

---

Believe me, I had many questions when Lazaris first spoke my name, and many more when he told me things I didn't want to hear. I'm grateful I decided to try to understand, rather than reject everything; I think it saved my life, and I think that if I had found this site while really vunerable I would've died first. No doubt this site is reaching many who haven't reached their own conclusions and had their own experiences, why would you want them to have yours by presenting them on a silver platter?

---

See the problem I see in what you have written here addresses one of the most insidious things about Concept Synergy.

They have more often than not been able to convince people that Lazaris is metaphysics.

There is no reason why someone who questions Lazaris should have their confidence in a metapysical/spiritual path shaken.

To imply that if people question legitimately they create danger for other people is the worst kind of argument as far as I am concerned.

Questioning an honest and reliable source can only result in reassurance.

Questioning a corrupt source can bring revelation that is painful but important.

The basic tools of metaphysics, visualization, processing and meditation have been around long before Lazaris appeared in 1974.

I understand you feel loyal to the source that had such impact on you and I am the first to say there is value in the Lazaris material in places.

There are questions that have to be answered out of responsiblity to ourselves.

I do think that to imply that questioning Lazaris is a lethal act for some people overvalues Lazaris and undervalues us.

Cheers,

Jeremiah

Thank you for the clarification about your nick name. You didn't answer my question, though, about whether they spoke your name aloud or in your head. It's the difference between empirical evidence and possibly imaginary evidence.

You wrote:

quote:

---

You made a suggestion about how they "might" know peoples names etc, based on conjecture, not evidence.

---

You're quite right. I didn't present it as evidence - I presented it as a possible alternative to the notion that Lazaris speaking someone's name is indicative of extra-human capability. Given that "Lazaris" routinely checks Jach's watch with Jach's eyes, and can see how many people are left with those same eyes, I still find it odd that people whisper in Jach's ear.

You wrote:

quote:

---

If you understood "metaphysics" more than your own resentment (or whatever emotion it is) you wouldn't
bring others into the issue.

---

We didn't bring anyone here. We provided a space. And it's not "read-only".

You wrote:

quote:

---

...I think it saved my life, and I think that if I had found this site while really vunerable I would've died first. No doubt this site is reaching many who haven't reached their own conclusions and had their own experiences, why would you want them to have yours by presenting them on a silver platter?

---

That's a bit melodramatic, don't you think? Are you suggesting that we may be partially responsible for someone's death because we convinced them that Lazaris is a sham, when Lazaris could have (helped) save their life? And you question my understanding of metaphysics?

"Lazaris" has said that the more choices a person has, the more powerful the choice becomes. Even when those "more choices" are negative. The more input one has, the more powerful the descision. If one's belief in Lazaris can withstand the information and opinions presented on this site, then the belief had much more power than if it is never challenged.

quote:

---

See the problem I see in what you have written here addresses one of the most insidious things about Concept Synergy.

They have more often than not been able to convince people that Lazaris is metaphysics.

There is no reason why someone who questions Lazaris should have their confidence in a metapysical/spiritual path shaken.

---

I told you I'm new to this. I did not mean to imply that my metaphysical/spiritual path was shaken.

Lazaris advice to me at times pushed me to move beyond what I was ready for, at least that was my reactive mind reaction.

I completely fell to pieces before I put myself back together again. I can also see how if I didn't have a dis-trust of Lazaris at the time it would have been easier.

Regardless, I now trust Lazaris, and these day's he only talks to me in my head.

I also didn't mean to imply that questioning anything is bad, but questioning is a two edged sword and need a "safe place". The "gang" here is just as biased as the "gang" there at least according to what the "gang" here has to say about the "gang" there.

I'm questioning if this is a safe place? My intuition says it's not at all.

Out loud.

quote:

---

You're quite right. I didn't present it as evidence - I presented it as a possible alternative to the notion that Lazaris speaking someone's name is indicative of extra-human capability.

---

What would motivate you to present an argument for which you had no proof unless to build a bandwagon of disbelievers?

If you could prove that Lazaris was a fraud I guess I'd get turned inside out again.

I don't think you're offering anyone an additional choice to those they have already. I don't doubt that many have had the same questions as you...I have, before I ever read them here. I did not choose the same way as you. Had I come upon this overly lopsided site when I was vulnerable I may have.

Like I said earlier, I'm not sure how much good can come from this site. It's a loaded gun.

quote:

---

I also didn't mean to imply that questioning anything is bad, but questioning is a two edged sword and need a "safe place". The "gang" here is just as biased as the "gang" there at least according to what the "gang" here has to say about the "gang" there.

---

I dont consider myself a part of any gang.

I don't have an agenda or a set of conclusions that I am hoping to convince others of.

I am thinking out loud here and if I resolve my doubts about CS and Lazaris tomorrow, I will be the first to write about it.

Are you a member of the forum? I ask because you compare this one to the J&L forum

And when you write that Lazaris speaks to you "only in your head" does that mean you are not familiar with the taped material?

quote:

---

I'm questioning if this is a safe place? My intuition says it's not at all.

---

I don't know how you can make it "safe "without censoring and where is the safety in that?

Where is the power in that?

Hope you can find a way to stay, but if your intuitive hit is that this place isn't for you then I wish you the best on your path.

Jeremiah

quote:

---

I'm not sure if this support issue is directed at me or not.

---

No, it isn't directed at you, but it is in response to the concept of support as I have seen you and others use it here.

quote:

---

I offered some support to fp based on the fact that I felt people were misinterpreting his motives. I mentioned your interaction with Chris on another thread as an example of such misinterpretation. My support for both these people seems to have brought up an issue for you. Is that true?

---

Yes, that and other interactions here as well.

quote:

---

Let me make this perfectly clear. I have no problem with you disagreeing with any post on this board when your disagreement is based on ideas. I offer my support to those who I feel are being personally attacked in regards to their motives.

---

Yes, and that is a point of disagreement between us. I would like you to show me where I have misinterpreted someones motives rather than responded directly to something they said. I recall very clearly writing to you that I was not a psychic and could not interpret your motives. If someone just crashed into my parked car, we can assume that it would be possible to have a discussion about their responsibility for that without delving into their motives.

quote:

---

I never offer "me too" support. Chris and fp are eloquent enough without my intercession. When I do have something to add, it is to higlight a point that has not been addressed and that imo needs to be looked at.

---

I dispute that, but don't have the inclination to go back and cut and paste my reasons why. You are the ultimate judge of your own actions and motives, so I leave you to it. Let's just leave it that you and I don't see things in the same way.

quote:

---

I have never questioned your support of free speech and admire your commitment to it.

---

Thank you, but better you should practice it and support it yourself than admire me for supporting it. It is a fundamental human right guaranteed to us by our Constitution, not some new and noble idea of mine. I am merely attempting to do my best to live by the agreed upon laws and principles of the society I live in. Freedom is not an elusive butterfly, as Jachzaris would have us believe.

I said:

"...even when what they have to say is something nasty about me, or just plain foul and manipulative…"

quote:

---

again, I don't know if this is directed at me or not.

---

quote:

---

I have made comments about your treatment of Chris and fp. If you think they were unfair, I am more than willing to discuss them. If you do not want this done on an open forum, we can exchange emails (I believe you have access to mine).

---

I feel no need to engage in a private email debate, but thank you for the offer. I have stated my position on fp and Chris's post ad tedium, and have no desire or need to say anything more on the topic at the moment. Again, I think it's more appropriate to agree that we don't see eye to eye on this.

I said: "What does that mean anyway, freedom with responsibility? No one can force another to be responsible."

quote:

---

Our whole system of law is based on the idea that people are responsible for their actions. On this board, I believe people are responsible for their words. Obviously there are those who will not take responsibility and I will not interact with those people. I do take responsibility.

---

You and I clearly differ on what it means to be responsible. To me, it is responsible to be able to define and recognize manipulation, for example, and I don't see that you have taken responsibility to do that. Manipulation is not a matter to be decided by a popular poll. It is a dynamic with clear, definable and recognizable characteristics that are acknowledged even outside of the Lazaris community. I didn't make up the word or the concept. It was defined because it is indentifiable behavior and eventually some within the human community who chose to respond to it (be responsible) addressed it as a socially degrading dynamic. I happen to agree.

To argue about the presence of manipulation in an interaction is to me no different than arguing about the meaning of "is".

quote:

---

I don't think that's the kind of board you want.

---

I want the exact kind of board we have right now. What happens on this board, and what I seek and desire from my intimate relationships are two different things. This board is not relationship for me, per se. It is a forum, not a marriage. It's purpose for me is to have a place to share my thoughts with others as long there is value in that for me. So far, it is more than fulfilling that purpose.

quote:

---

Please let me know if I am being fair to you.

---

I'm being fair to myself, that's quite enough for me. I'm not here looking for fairness from others. Each of us makes our own determination as to the role we choose to play in a community, and whether we are fair or not. We all live with our own consequences for good or bad.

quote:

---

I hope you can see that while you and I may have different ideas on certain issues, we are probably much closer on how we feel about treating other people.

---

I don't see that, actually. I think we are light years from each other on that topic. We are certainly different in the way we treat others. I am no supporter of manipulation, but you seem to be oblivious to it at best, and charmed by it at worst.

quote:

---

For me, it's a core issue of spirituality and one that I will continue to bring up when I see lines being crossed.

---

You are free to do that.

I think though, that we should leave this conversation with the understanding that we both have drawn different lines.

Katie

quote:

---

I hear the Jachzaris spin these days is how freedom without responsibility results in tyranny and entitlement or something like that. That indicates to me that they are reading on this board.

What does that mean anyway, freedom with responsibility? No one can force another to be responsible. As soon as you start doing that, then you are making rules and restricting freedom.

---

God bless freedom and *free speech* -- when a tyrant lke Jach Purcel / Lazzyass is left to define "responsibility" -- ALL MEASURES are *HIS*.

People -- it goes like this: if the speech in question cannot be proven -- by intellegent measure -- DISTINCTLY *dangerous* to others THEN -- -- AND *ONLY* THEN is it socially responsible.

All other -- tyranical, by definition -- measures of "responsible" free speech are ipso facto: cult mind control and ABSOLUTELY *soul lethal*.

quote:

---

Jach defines the responsibility, then everyone lives up to it and feels real free. Oh yeah! Give me liberty or give me a sock to stick in Jach's mouth.

In this country we have agreed that we have the freedom to believe, think, and speak freely. Somehow Jachzaris seems to be trying to find a way around that.

I knew something was bugging me about that freedom with responsibility crap. I just got it.

One more mind control tactic.

Screw you Jach, I'm going home.

---

Welcome to colorful street language in New York, NY -- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -- Mr. Purcel.

Prepare to have your Emporer's ass stripped completely bare.

Your history -- and present actions are those of a spiritual authority abusing tyrant.

You are indeed marked for UNENDING -- *spontanious honest and responsible* public exposure. May you live long in agonizing regret -- to the day you *at very last* atone to those you have so very deeply damaged with your behavior -- or perish horribly -- at your own slow hand for lack of *all possible* self-forgiveness.

Steve
sb6@altavista.com

quote:

---

You seem really connected to the "star f**ckd", why don't you ask Shirley and post her opinion here for all of us! I'm sure we'll believe you.

btw-- why do the celebrities need steve as a spokesperson?

---

Yep. Some VERY Con:Sin "star f*cked" stars.

Just use the 'site search' feature on the cosmcfool if'n you are *truly* interested in viewing this information. It would be VERY much worth your while IMO.

Shirley goes into great -- damning detail in her books. Please -- go for it Tim.

quote:

---

I'd like proof of all of Steve's claims in his response to me (on page 4) and even then I'm not sure I'd discount my experience.

---

My claims on the false positive HIV front are founded in tremendous personal agony. I lost a very close friend to those drugs.

Please at least investigate the VERY MINOR physical conditions that CAN IN FACT trigger a positive HIV reading.

Lazzyass ITSELF has said on NUMEROUS occasions *NOT* to trust HIV antibody tests. IT may be behaviorally evil -- but it's not unschooled.

www.aliveandwell.org -- read-up there and consider what may have triggered a "false" positive test result at your health crisis time of HIV testing.

88888888888888888888888888

Thank you for clarifying about your nickname. TedV, Katie, and so many -- even the admirably centerd, calm, and NY sharp Jeremiah misunderstood you to mean: Lazaris using the last name *as seen* on your credit card in a blending.

Hey. I COMPLETELY agree that Lazzyass has some VERY IMPRESSIVE mind-over-matter abilities. But then -- so does Guru Sai Baba -- -- and he uses them to DISARM AND ANALLY RAPE small boys -- for God's sake -- literally!

Steve
sb6@altavista.com

I would just like to point out there is lots of anecdotal evidence that Sai Baba's "manifestations" are just cheap parlor tricks, as well as evidence that he raped (and/or is raping) innocent boys.

quote:

---

I would just like to point out there is lots of anecdotal evidence that Sai Baba's "manifestations" are just cheap parlor tricks

---

Jesus Christ -- that along with his absolute first hand witness-confirmed raping of young boys.

Many have seen enough out of Lazzyass to know that he does indeed appear to have paranormal knowing ability.

That along with his family-violent, medically, and otherwise massive -- damaging abuse of *assumed* spiritual authority -- is IMO an even more UNDERHANDED and therefore --OMINOUS cult mix.

God protect us all --

Steve
sb6@altavista.com

Impressive post, I appreciate the thoughtful and detailed response. You and I do have different views of people and their ideas, but no need to hash it all out now. I think you are right and that we should agree to disagree and move on.