quote:

---

Originally posted by Katie:
Hi TedC,

I don't know, if I was so avidly defending someone, I'd sure be embarrassed to admit that I haven't even a cursory familiarity with their philosophy, especially an aspect of it as significant and pervasive throughout as the topic of manipulation is within the Lazaris material.

It's kinda like saying you love Mozart but you can't recall much about his music.

What parts of the Lazaris material are you familiar with? Is there any topic you'd like to discuss? Let's take this discussion out of the realm of the vague and get a bit more specific. There is something in the materials that compels you to defend them, what is it specifically?

Katie

---

Katie,

First you say you're going to start a discussion, then you skip the discussion and accuse me of not knowing anything about it! What is going on?! Do you want to discuss it or not? You profess expertise on manipulation and say that Chris and I practice nothing but. What is it? Define your terms and let's get this show on the road!

TedC

**********WOOOOOOO---WOOOOOO***************

I would NOT have believed it until I saw it... LOL!!! Where DO you find these things.????

Juliette Sweet, I'm drawing a blank....who is this woo woo..???

It is SO interesting to see OTHER wooo-wooos using so much of the same vernacular as Jach!!! We note that he's not original but that stuff really brings it home.. it's remarkable really.. wouldn't he think that others would make these connections???

Jach musta been hangin' wid da Princess of da underground! uh -vortex-- and at 268 yrs old too, MAN....she must be WISE..!!

Shasta in the summertime, we should all converge there for our own NEW Harmonic convergence/Sacred Cow b-b-Q.!!!

Don't wear the purple muu-muu, or they will think you're run o' the mill woo-woo

I just want to say: glad you're posting again! I think you add a lot to the site.

LOL, I found the story of the princess on a new age message board where I was hoping to have a productive discussion about channelling etc. You know, before the Fool arrived to save the day.

I was the bad girl there, very very much despised because I found it hard to take all the wierdness seriously. Ms. Peny arrived there in disguise, but they're aint enough moo moos in the world to disguise that one.

Anyway, I swear to you, these people were pissed off at me big big time and lost many nights sleep over my irreverence. Peny was on their side.

I'll have to tell you the Juliette Sweet story privately, it involves mutual acquaintences of ours, and I'm sure when I begin to fill you in you'll remember the stories.

One clue, she once was among the stellar at that well-known groovy vitamin company here in Santa Cruz. Who coulda dreamed that she would go on to fame and glory as private secretary to the lovely princess?

Anyway, just more fun health food industry gossip.

BTW, the beautiful Lemurian princess has also made a few guest appearances on cult-awareness sites. Naaahhhh!! could it be????

Life is so full of disappointments!

quote:

---

Anyone who’s done a Lazaris meditation a handful of times or even many times in an erratic manner has nothing to worry about. Even the most suggestible individuals will find that their old patterns of belief and behavior return quickly if the effort to change them wasn’t concerted enough or for a long enough period of time.

---

I would appreciate it if you would qualify the above statement as only your opinion.

I would also appreciate it if you would answer my question: And, once again, what are your credentials to psychoanalyze me and state my motives?

Thank you

Katie

you wrote today:

quote:

---

First you say you're going to start a discussion, then you skip the discussion and accuse me of not knowing anything about it! What is going on?! Do you want to discuss it or not? You profess expertise on manipulation and say that Chris and I practice nothing but. What is it? Define your terms and let's get this show on the road!

---

You wrote yesterday:

quote:

---

I do want to start a spirituality thread.

---

and:

quote:

---

At some point I hope there are those interested in getting past the demonization of L and discussing spirituality in their present lives. I would like to initiate that discussion myself when I am better prepared.

---

Right! What is going on? And since you are not prepared to discuss it, why are you?

Katie

Chris,

In response to TedC's statement:

quote:

---

What is meaningful is to assert there is a difference between guided meditation and hypnosis and delineate what those differences might be, which was Chris' whole argument (and completely missed by those who disputed him). L obviously made a distinction, why else promise not to do something and then do it a million times?

---

You wrote:

quote:

---

Yes, the entire thrust of my multiple postings during the hypnosis discussion was to simply indicate that
there are several rather subjective definitions of what "hypnosis" is... Some consider only overt, directive suggestion presented in the classical authoritarian manner to be hypnosis (too strict an interpretation for me but seems to be the one Lazaris works with).

---

But you said, in the Lazaris and Hypnosis thread:

quote:

---

Well, guided meditations are in fact hypnotic processes. But at the same time so are daydreams and deep reveries.

---

So you agree that they are hypnosis. BTW, I don't buy the daydreams being hypnosis anymore than I buy Clinton's definition of sex. If a word can mean anything then it means nothing. Words have specific meaning, otherwise they're useless in communication.

Webster's New World Dictionary defines hypnosis as "a trancelike condition, usually induced by another person, in which the subject responds to the suggestions of the hypnotist" (emphasis mine). That does not include daydreams. It does include Lazaris' "guided meditations".

You wrote, in the same thread:

quote:

---

Lazaris said that we would not be hypnotized without our permission. Absolutely true. Our permission is granted every time we pop in a cassette or sit during a seminar and "close our eyes and begin to relax".

---

Are we not to infer from this that you consider the "mediations" to be hypnosis?

And, if that's too ambivilant, how about this statement:

quote:

---

The hypnosis Lazaris utilizes is a combination of traditional hypnosis as well as simple imagery. This is the nature of all guided meditation from anyone who offers such techniques

---

If the words, "hynosis Lazaris utilizes" doesn't suggest that you believe the "meditations" to be hypnosis, I don't know what does.

TedC,

The end of your quote above:

quote:

---

L obviously made a distinction, why else promise not to do something and then do it a million times?

---

Ask the wife of an abusive husband. Maybe they keep repeating it get the exact reaction you had.

Cheers, Ted

Arguing by definition doesn't prove a point, it only establishes what you already know.
Since you know what you what you know, what more can I say?

I didn't think your discussion was dependent on mine. So be it. You shall have my thoughts on spirituality some time this weekend.

You wrote:

quote:

---

Arguing by definition doesn't prove a point, it only establishes what you already know.

---

What the hell does that mean? The whole basis of your defense of Chris' argument is the definition of hypnosis. By the definition set forth by the people who speak the language - humans - Lazaris has hypnotized people. Doing something and then claiming you are not doing it is lying. Doing it repeatedly for years on end is continuously and purposefully lying. When a rational person is lied to repeatedly, they become suspicious of everything that eminates from that source.

When the repeated lie is told by someone who continuously claims to never lie, there are two lies. When destructive lies are woven throughout the known liar's messages, even the rare truth in those messages is tainted. A little bit of perfume does not significantly improve the oder of a huge pile of feces.

Wasn't it Lazaris who suggested that we throw out the barrel is but one apple is bad?

On the previous page, Chris said, "the entire thrust of my multiple postings during the hypnosis discussion was to simply indicate that there are several rather subjective definitions of what "hypnosis" is." You choose to ignore this. It is your supposition that there are no distinctions in any kind of trance state work, all trance state work is hypnosis. This is defining a very subjective term rigidly in order to suit your agenda of "proving" L is a liar. If you do not choose to acknowledge to nebulous nature of that term, it is pointless for us to argue the truth or falsehood of L's words.

TedC

I disagree with Chris' assertion that hypnosis is too nebulous to pin down and I disagree with his assertion that that was the thrust of his argument, hence the quotes from the old thread. Disagreeing and ignoring are two different things.

As for my alleged agenda to prove that Lazaris is a liar - I have no such agenda. I have a firm belief that Lazaris is not only a liar, but he/they don't even exist. You can believe whatever you like.

OK, so you've laid out a pattern of Katie's behavior. You provided no substantiation, other than this is a pattern you've perceived.

It's a straw man. Katie has had issues with you. She clearly defined what the issues are, and they don't include the fact that you believe Lazaris to be real. In fact, you posted about your belief in Lazaris for a long time on this board before Katie ever challenged you on your posts. When she did, it was not about whether Lazaris is real, it was about your alleged authoritah regarding hypnosis. You may disagree all you want with her perceptions and opinions, but to suggest that they are a result of your, or anyone else's, belief in Lazaris is totally unsubstantiated.

You wrote:

quote:

---

...The irrational dismissing of all authority in the mistaken assumption that all of us know exactly as much as any other on any subject.

---

Speaking of mistaken assumptions - please indicate where Katie has ever suggested that everyone knows exactly as much about any subject.

You wrote:

quote:

---

...The anger you feel toward Lazaris (and by default all spiritual teachers) for what you see as betrayal as well as the hurt and pain caused by this betrayal.

---

I know for a fact that Katie has the utmost respect for Paramahansa Yogananda, as do I. Her comments about Yogananda appear several places on this board.

You wrote:

quote:

---

...Overt hostility and no real discussion of the subject at hand save as it can be used to demonize or belittle the "enemy". No attempt to discuss the subject rationally or at best the dredging up of the most wacko, out there and conspiratorial representations of your opponent's point of view.

---

Suggesting that Katie has provided no real discussion of the subject at hand is absurd. She has presented mountains of factual and anecdotal evidence for her case. Whether you agree with the data she has presented or not, it is totally false to say that she hasn't presented it.

From your "analysis", I can only conclude that you don't know the subject of your analysis. I also wonder why Katie's psychological state is so important to you. You don't seem to miss an opportunity to disrupt a conversation with your, "she's doing it again" interjections. Katie is far from the only person on this site to have used sarcasm or disagreed vehemently with others. Why is she so important?

Here's a bone for you to chew on. It will save anyone the effort of reading through all those posts.

I do believe that you are "deceptive, intellectually dishonest, basically a fraud with a bogus career."

You are trying to manipulate me into saying that isn't what I believe, but it is what I believe. If I have any apologies to make here, it is for taking up everyones time and energy, including my own, documenting my reasons for that.

I should have just come right out and said it in the first place, like I am now.

I could make nicey nice and say those aren't the only beliefs I hold about you, and list all the nice things, but that would be a game. I'm not trying to make nicey nice, and I have absolutely no incentive to do so with you. You play dirty, you're a manipulator, and one nasty piece of work hiding behind a phoney sign off of Love and Peace, and that is just a clear reflection to me of those other beliefs I have about you.

I also continue to believe that you have conjured up your own entity in the guise of one TedC to come here and provide support for yourself. As you know, I have already begun the process of attempting to establish physical proof of the existance of said entity, and that is no doubt what set you off on this sleepless, hysterical tirade in the first place.

You don't have to prove to anyone that I said anything, I'm saying it right here and now.

As to you being dangerous, that is entirely up to the judgement of those who choose to invite you into their minds. You can judge the danger you are to yourself by the way you are right now responding to reading this post.

As to your motives, other than the fact that you have stated your goal here to make a career out of all the above, I have not assigned any motives that I am aware of.

If you show me that I have made up motives for you that you did not yourself provide, I might consider recanting. I think it sucks to tell anyone why they do what they do. It's quite enough to address what they do and leave the why to their own determination.

Does that clear things up for you?

Now, let's just drop this conversation, because I'm not about to engage in any discussion about what I'm allowed to believe or not believe, or to be told what my motives are for believing.

If you believe yourself to be a representative of all Friends of Lazaris (and thank god you are not) and assign to every one else my beliefs about you, go ahead, but that is more of your manipulative bullshit geared toward gaining those supporters you NEED so desperately.

I'm as entitled to my opinion as anyone else here, and you are just as free to ignore it.

I challenge you to assign me to my proper place in your reality and do just that.

Like Rob says, all beliefs are bullshit anyway, but as Ted points out, it's also a good thing to have working beliefs to provide ourselves with the basic premises upon which we protect ourselves and flourish.

Lava and peas,

Katie

quote:

---

Originally posted by Katie:

I also continue to believe that you have conjured up your own entity in the guise of one TedC to come here and provide support for yourself. As you know, I have already begun the process of attempting to establish physical proof of the existance of said entity...

---

Please tell me what you require to prove my existence. You have my personal email which I used to register on this site. Please email me your personal email and I will provide you with a telephone number and we can discuss whether I exist or not. I believe that I do. After that discussion, I would like for you to post a personal apology to Chris for the deceit you have mistakenly and repeatedly accused him of. Then you can offer a personal apology to me for implying that my ideas and feelings are not my own. If you are unwilling to do this, I can only assume that you would rather practice deceit and spread lies than admit you made a mistake.

TedC

I have already emailed you, yesterday.

I guess you don't check your messages.

Should you succeed in proving to me that you exist as a separate entity from Chris, I will be most happy to make that information known.

I don't know that would cause me to apologize for anything though. But it would provide you and Chris with the proof positive you need that I am not perfect.

I would think that would be victory enough for you.

As to your stated and projected assumptions, all I can say is that you are as free to make incorrect assumptions as I am.

So, how come you don't read your email?

I have received an email containing a phone number for TedC, and will be happy to report the outcome of any communication we may have.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Katie:

I don't know that would cause me to apologize for anything though. But it would provide you and Chris with the proof positive you need that I am not perfect.

I would think that would be victory enough for you.

---

We are not looking for victory and we already know you are not perfect. An apology implies a recognition that hurt has been done that requires healing. It is taking responsibility for your impact, which I don't see why you would want to avoid.

Have you ever had someone demand something from you that you would have gladly given without any need for them to make threats to get it?

How did that make you feel?

If you caved into the threats and demands, and gave it anyway, do you think the recipient really received anything of value?
No, they didn't because all they got was an puny nasty little ego hit.

How do you feel about being threatened and manipulated in general?

I put my neck out and stated my suspicions about this bizarre and hard to reconcile obsession that the TedC poster has for the Chris poster because
something smells very odd about the postings, and I am not the only one noticing the odor. I am willing to do that to get to the bottom of what is causing the stench.

Regardless of whether or not there is a separate entity with the name TedC, that still doesn't reconcile the dilemma of why this person is so obsessed with "defending" and "supporting" Chris, a person he claims not to know other than through his initial few minutes of reading on our site prior to posting. This is the most rapid and fervent alliance of my experience.

I don't care how many bodies might or might not be involved here, something still stinks of manipulation and game playing.

Are apologies debts to be fulfilled? Not unless what we crave is a big "better than" moment, or enjoy the crappy little power hit of forcing someone to do something they don't want to do.

If it ain't heartfelt, it ain't an apology, TedC or whoever you are. You can't demand something that needs to come from the heart. Hearts close in the face of threats and demands.

What we can rightfully demand is the Truth. That doesn't have to come from the heart, or be given from the heart. The Truth stands on it's own with no need for support, concession, or even belief.

So, when I get to the Truth of this issue, I will be more than happy to post it.

All the threats and manipulations will serve only to further my belief that there is something really foul and fucked up about this TedC/Chris bit.

I am a big believer that the Truth will always prevail, and fortune has always been on my side as far as that is concerned.

Whatever the Truth is about TedC/Chris will come out, of that I am confident. At that point I will be most delighted to embrace and acknowledge it.

As to caving to demands and manipulations. No, I won't do that. Anything I give is given freely, or not given at all, because then it is theft, not a gift or even payment of a debt.

Katie

quote:

---

Originally posted by Katie:

I put my neck out and stated my suspicions about this bizarre and hard to reconcile obsession that the TedC poster has for the Chris poster because something smells very odd about the postings, and I am not the only one noticing the odor...

---

The "odor" is friendship Katie. If you don't understand that, I can't explain it to you.

quote:

---

Are apologies debts to be fulfilled? Not unless what we crave is a big "better than" moment, or enjoy the crappy little power hit of forcing someone to do something they don't want to do.

---

I asked for an apology because I felt one was necessary. You interpreted that as an attempt to "extract" an apology by threatening consequences. The consequence of my opinion I'm sure hardly effects you. What I was trying to express was my outrage and frustration with someone who hurts people and refuses to make amends or take responsibility. I can see that you do not understand and will not acknowledge that. What I understand now is that's the kind of person you are and I must deal with you on that basis.

TedC

Regarding your post you stated you are glad that Katie's no longer "sugar coating the dialogue under which she has hidden her disdain" for you.... WHAT?????

...amazing... "Sugar coat":????--"HIDE"!???

Katie???----surely you jest!!!

Let's get real Chris..

This site has the most honest, upfront, in-your-face communicators that I have ever had the pleasure of interacting with. ..in my entire life...I feel very fortunate to be able to communicate with such responsible people.!!!!!as I know how bad it gets when they are not responsible..see Con;sin FORUM..

What you've been writing in this thread's gotten off the hypnosis subject a bit from
when I'd first jumped in that one with my own bad experience, my thoughts and feelings on the matter.

I felt at that time that you were talking down to me, and others, and that you were acting immediately as if I'd somehow cried out for help,.. when in fact I had not....

You were going to be there to straighten me out...

It became so absurd I just posted that your communication had descended to an issue of one's definition of what the word IS..IS..

..and I was off....

I don't have as much time to get into this thread now. Therefore, I won't go into a long discourse now, but I do have strong feelings about the comments you've made that Katie's reactions to your post are nothing more than knee jerk hostility.

( My opinion) You have come off as quite patronizing, you continue to do so...you espouse your opinions ....like: anyone who has done meditations have nothing to be concerned about, your old way of thinking comes back quickly..that type of recent posting ..Who the hell do you think you are to make such a broad sweeping general to-the-point-of laughable statement?????

On that one Katie simply wanted you to state that this was just your opinion...well that one AND many others in my mind....

You come off as the know-it-all when you s matter of factly state these things...

You don't have ANY idea how those meditations have effected me, nor can you say that about the next person.. you can only say that about yourself...

Then the recent stuff you say about her projecting her disdain for all snake oil salemen on you...She has involved herself in endless comunications with you...that doesn't appear to me to be a write off ,as I believe she' do to a snake oil salesman.

I certainly did...(write you off that is)
Your manner continues to rub me the wrong way, and makes it very easy to have disdain for you, and I told you that pretty much at the outset..

That I am running my films on your screen, would also not be true though, I was willing to get involved in communications with you, but was spoken to in a way that I felt would never treat me as an equal, intelligent, discerning adult, therefore I knew it would only serve to frustrate me, and as I am also frustrated with such things(you'd know that by reading posts), I decided not to get into it with you.

You state that Katie has preconceived ideas about persons in authority, many many many posts under NO GURU, NO TEACHERS.Katie spoke her mind in a very upfront manner over, and over again, and many others chimed in on those ones, regarding her ideas bout persons who assume authority....

You know that we are all working through having recently torn our minds free from the opressive grip of a cult, and the abusive "community" @ con'sin..so no doubt we have HEALTHY SCEPTICISM...

you say that she had shown "veiled dislike"..again,.. that's ABSURD.

Like any community, it is good to check out the neighborhood a bit before you decide to set up residence.

quote:

---

Regarding your post you stated you are glad that Katie's no longer "sugar coating the dialogue under which she has hidden her disdain" for you.... WHAT?????

...amazing... "Sugar coat":????--"HIDE"!???

---

I thought the same thing. Where did I sugar coat anything? I think it my failure to do so is what got Chris's knickers twisted in the first place.

I suppose pouring a big helping of "Love and Peace" over a bowl of sour milk isn't what you call "sugar coating".

The twists and turns of this discussion of "authority" have become too mind boggling even for me. First I'm not being nice, then I'm being phony and sugar coating things.

You can't have it both ways.

Thanks for noticing, I was getting really tired of pointing these inconsistancies out to Chris, it ain't worth the increasingly nasty and personal assaults.

You're probably safe from them though, cause your opinion evidently isn't as important or significant as mine.

Chris, do me a favor will you? Could you provide us with the glycemic index of "Love and Peace"?

I'm pretty sure it's one of those sugary things that exists only to drive up the blood sugar of the recipient.

Aud and I are into the more low glycemic stuff, that's why we like Lava and Peas. They don't serve to interfere with your brain chemistry the way all that phoney sweetness does.

Katie

quote:

---

Originally posted by Audrey:
Like any community, it is good to check out the neighborhood a bit before you decide to set up residence.

---

In my experience on this site, I can say that the distinctions were not clear to me and as a result, my first impressions were not anything that I recognize in reflection. I am not asking for anything in the above, simply stating my perception of the experience.

Continuing,
Chuck

Well, I'm sick of this poor old horse too, but evidently he isn't dead yet.

You continue to ignore the point that your perspective on hypnosis is not the issue, it is your statements of ultimate authority on that and other topics, such as the state of my mental health which are being addressed here.

You can divert, twist, and turn the conversation forever, but that won't change the fact that some of us are not interested in your belief that you have the final word on what is right or wrong for other people.

You are damned, bound and determined to exercise some authority here Chris, and no matter how painful and difficult you make it to discuss that, it will continue to be addressed. I have stated my personal committment to doing that.

This is an example of what I object to in your posts:

quote:

---

Anyone who’s done a Lazaris meditation a handful of times or even many times in an erratic manner has nothing to worry about. Even the most suggestible individuals will find that their old patterns of belief and behavior return quickly if the effort to change them wasn’t concerted enough or for a long enough period of time.

---

Not Chris' opinion, Chris's authoritarian statement of fact which we are not allowed to question at threat of a huge destructive temper tantrum.

If you want this conversation to end, then just stop trying to play "Mini-me" to Jach Purcel, or take it somewhere where people enjoy that kind of assertion, please.

[I have been looking for fairness and balance without insult or attack. In this regard I have made myself abundantly clear.[/quote]

I would dispute that Chris. You are not looking for fairness nor are you practicing it.

Katie

In my post to you, I was simply re-hashing my overall position and feelings so that you would not have to go back to those old posts to re-read them.
I pretty much figured you'd forgotten who I was, as you have sooooo much attention directed towards Katie..

That was about the jist of it, my post to you were my thoughts on the current state of affairs you have taken up with Katie, and that was to say that you are still acting in the same manner which I didn't appreciate.
No more than that...

I did not mean to send you out on a RED HERRING FISHING expedition... but it appears that is what happened.

You have chosen to ignore the point I made about that statement that Katie has again pointed out above, so no need to mention it again.

I'm sorry that I pissed you off so much by telling you I don't appreciate your delivery, that you forgot to respond to a point I'd like addressed...

I just didn't want you to say that I "veiled" any of my hostility, or true feelings about you...I like my stuff right out in the open, as I trust so many others in this site do, and I must humbly disagree with your disagreement about my thoughts on Katie...

You have all this understanding of foul play within a communication, and not one bit of ability to acknowledge that you are guilty of it. I'd feel a lot better if you were just ignorant.

quote:

---

My words would be unfounded attacks if there wasn’t anything to back them up.[quote]

Here are some of your backed up words.

[quote]To paraphrase,"Chris is a dangerous liar not to be trusted because his motives are to sell you products or services and anyway he got his training from an ad on the back of a cracker jack box so listen to me not him."

---

I never said any of that, you made it up. It's fully unsubstantiated. That is how you TOOK my words, not what I said, and now you offer it as proof? In all the words I've written to you, you cannot come up with one actual quote of mine to substatiate your alleged facts? You are correct, this is an unfounded attack.

quote:

---

Your posts provide all the proof I need to indicate that I am not entirely incorrect.

---

OK, show me. This is another unfounded attack.

quote:

---

Defending oneself and attacking another is not the same thing. [quote]

Yes, that is correct. So why do you keep doing it to me and now Audrey? I notice that she is now "paranoid" too.

[quote]Any anger I have expressed is in direct relation to your calling me a liar and questioning my integrity. I have regrettably been forced to defend myself against spurious statements on your part regarding me that pop up from time to time.
Anyone would and indeed should do the same.

---

Most people would provide some evidence instead of just making it up.

quote:

---

"Look I have this info that clearly disputes what Chris is saying."
is wholly different from:
To paraphrase,"Chris is a dangerous liar not to be trusted because his motives are to sell you products or services and anyway he got his training from an ad on the back of a cracker jack box so listen to me not him."

---

Yes, it is different, you are correct. I never made that statement however. This is your strawman.

I did provide information which supports my disagreements with you, heaps and piles of it, mostly from your own endorsed hynosis expert, and directly from your own words.

Stop putting words in my mouth and accusing me of doing exactly what you are doing.

Stop!!!! PLEASE!!!

I don't think I have ever encountered any adult human being who was so incredibly in need of being agreed with and supported as you evidently are.

Please! Give it a rest, and stop punishing me and now Audrey for our responses to you.

What is it with you and women anyway? I notice you don't take on the men here like this, yet several of them have said exactly the same things to you as Audrey and I have.

You're the "therapist" here, maybe you can enlighten us as to what that is about.

Katie