Re: Tami please leave this group!

[Guest guest]

> > > >

> > > > If I want a rollmodell for the Work, you are not the person

> who

> > > > attracts me.

> > >

> > >

> > > Yes, I can understand that

> > >

> > > I am sure that Jesus also was not a very popular role model in

> his

> > > day. I am fairly sure that the tax collectors in the temple

> would

> > > not have taken Jesus as role model after he upturned all their

> > > tables. Nor would the priests in the temple have taken Jesus

as

> a

> > > role model, because he did not speak against the Roman

> occupation

> > of

> > > Jerusalem.

> > >

> > > LOL ... honestly who wants someone who demonstrates love in

> action

> > > as a role model. Much better to have a " bliss-ninny " who does

> > > nothing and walks around in a self-absorbed trance as a role

> model.

> > >

> > > Have a beautiful day

> > >

> > >

> > > " Sanity doesn't suffer, ever . . . ever! Sanity doesn't

suffer,

> > > ever, ever! Isn't that lovely? " Byron

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

***For me whether or not Tami got kicked out is irrelevant ~ I have

never heard of anyone getting kicked out of The School. Have you?

What does that say to you? For me, the relevance is in the fact

that she says she hated the experience. She hated the School, says

she hates , and doesnt like to do the work...hhhmmm. Okay.

**The fact that she wasnt thrown out tells me nothing about her. It

may tell me that and the other organizers are incredibly

tolerant and loving (yup, my story and my experience in the

school)...and if I was looking for a role model, which I'm

not...lol...I'd start with anyone who could deal with T

effectively , not being manipulated by her needs for LAA and

allowing her to be present and inviting her to question her

stories...that's what the school was all about. And I love that she

is here until she isn't. And I love that I'm here until I'm not.

In this moment, if I have a problem with her, you, LTWBK, etc, there

is no difference in any of it, it is all my thoughts that I am

dealing with and I can question them if I'd like to find some

peace. I find the whole thing quite intersting and I will love it

if she stays, and I will love it if LTWBK gets her removed...I'm

sure it will all unfold perfectly!! Does he have that much

influence? I'm fascinated to find out!! lol (remember ,

nothing serious is going on here...you sound soooooooooo serious

about all of this! so unlike you not to see the fun in it all!

enjoying the show,

catherine

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I enjoy tami.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > And your getting in our business. I notice because i

am

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > so often in others business,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > so no wonder, r

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Ros I enjoy Tami to, but not in this group. She would be

> an

> > > > > absolute

> > > > > > scream in an on-line dating forum or sex starved Jewish

> > babes

> > > > > forum,

> > > > > > but here her boiled vegetables are not what most people

> are

> > > > > > interested in. Imagine if you were at a intensive

> and

> > > Tami

> > > > > > started to talk about her latest love interest i.e.

,

> > > Ziggi,

> > > > > > Steve etc. do you think that would give her center

> > stage

> > > > and

> > > > > > indulge her attention seeking? I don't think so. If

> > > would

> > > > > not

> > > > > > put up with such behaviour in her intensives/schools,

then

> > why

> > > > do

> > > > > we

> > > > > > have to put up with it in this group? The answer is that

> we

> > > > don't

> > > > > > have to put up with her antics any longer, and if she

> > doesn't

> > > > wish

> > > > > > to leave voluntarily then I guess it's up to me to make

it

> > > > happen

> > > > > > one way or another.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Have a beautiful day

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > " Sanity doesn't suffer, ever . . . ever! Sanity doesn't

> > > suffer,

> > > > > > ever, ever! Isn't that lovely? " Byron

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

> > > > >

> > > > > If I want a rollmodell for the Work, you are not the

person

> > who

> > > > > attracts me.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Yes, I can understand that

> > > >

> > > > I am sure that Jesus also was not a very popular role model

in

> > his

> > > > day. I am fairly sure that the tax collectors in the temple

> > would

> > > > not have taken Jesus as role model after he upturned all

their

> > > > tables. Nor would the priests in the temple have taken Jesus

> as

> > a

> > > > role model, because he did not speak against the Roman

> > occupation

> > > of

> > > > Jerusalem.

> > > >

> > > > LOL ... honestly who wants someone who demonstrates love in

> > action

> > > > as a role model. Much better to have a " bliss-ninny " who

does

> > > > nothing and walks around in a self-absorbed trance as a role

> > model.

> > > >

> > > > Have a beautiful day

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > " Sanity doesn't suffer, ever . . . ever! Sanity doesn't

> suffer,

> > > > ever, ever! Isn't that lovely? " Byron

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If I want a rollmodell for the Work, you are not the

> person

> > > who

> > > > > > attracts me.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes, I can understand that

> > > > >

> > > > > I am sure that Jesus also was not a very popular role

model

> in

> > > his

> > > > > day. I am fairly sure that the tax collectors in the

temple

> > > would

> > > > > not have taken Jesus as role model after he upturned all

> their

> > > > > tables. Nor would the priests in the temple have taken

Jesus

> > as

> > > a

> > > > > role model, because he did not speak against the Roman

> > > occupation

> > > > of

> > > > > Jerusalem.

> > > > >

> > > > > LOL ... honestly who wants someone who demonstrates love

in

> > > action

> > > > > as a role model. Much better to have a " bliss-ninny " who

> does

> > > > > nothing and walks around in a self-absorbed trance as a

role

> > > model.

> > > > >

> > > > > Have a beautiful day

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > " Sanity doesn't suffer, ever . . . ever! Sanity doesn't

> > suffer,

> > > > > ever, ever! Isn't that lovely? " Byron

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I enjoy tami.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > And your getting in our business. I notice because i

> am

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > so often in others business,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > so no wonder, r

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Ros I enjoy Tami to, but not in this group. She would

be

> > an

> > > > > > absolute

> > > > > > > scream in an on-line dating forum or sex starved

Jewish

> > > babes

> > > > > > forum,

> > > > > > > but here her boiled vegetables are not what most

people

> > are

> > > > > > > interested in. Imagine if you were at a

intensive

> > and

> > > > Tami

> > > > > > > started to talk about her latest love interest i.e.

> ,

> > > > Ziggi,

> > > > > > > Steve etc. do you think that would give her

center

> > > stage

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > indulge her attention seeking? I don't think so. If

>

> > > > would

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > put up with such behaviour in her intensives/schools,

> then

> > > why

> > > > > do

> > > > > > we

> > > > > > > have to put up with it in this group? The answer is

that

> > we

> > > > > don't

> > > > > > > have to put up with her antics any longer, and if she

> > > doesn't

> > > > > wish

> > > > > > > to leave voluntarily then I guess it's up to me to

make

> it

> > > > > happen

> > > > > > > one way or another.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Have a beautiful day

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > " Sanity doesn't suffer, ever . . . ever! Sanity

doesn't

> > > > suffer,

> > > > > > > ever, ever! Isn't that lovely? " Byron

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

> > > > >

> > > > > If I want a rollmodell for the Work, you are not the person

> > who

> > > > > attracts me.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Yes, I can understand that

> > > >

> > > > I am sure that Jesus also was not a very popular role model

in

> > his

> > > > day. I am fairly sure that the tax collectors in the temple

> > would

> > > > not have taken Jesus as role model after he upturned all

their

> > > > tables. Nor would the priests in the temple have taken Jesus

> as

> > a

> > > > role model, because he did not speak against the Roman

> > occupation

> > > of

> > > > Jerusalem.

> > > >

> > > > LOL ... honestly who wants someone who demonstrates love in

> > action

> > > > as a role model. Much better to have a " bliss-ninny " who does

> > > > nothing and walks around in a self-absorbed trance as a role

> > model.

> > > >

> > > > Have a beautiful day

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > " Sanity doesn't suffer, ever . . . ever! Sanity doesn't

> suffer,

> > > > ever, ever! Isn't that lovely? " Byron

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

> >

> > *** Well then I politely ask you to not tell more stories, but to

> > question them please, and be a rollmodel for us all.

I am a role model for applying the Work in social action. It

appears that you have made the " mistake " most beginners to the Work

make and try to use the Work to wrap yourself up in a cosy bubble of

Inquiry and think that there is no need to take social or political

action in the world.

*****There is no " need. " Some are moved to take social/political

action. Others, are not. I do, however, agree that being clear

and " centered " allows more sound, rational, and effective

social/political action. Thanks for the BK quote. I always enjoy

your offerings of her words.

Now.....to the heart of this post....quite frankly, I don't see what

all this hoopla is about.

Are you upset about the amount of bandwidth which is being consumed

by Tami's many posts?

As I see it, a person's right to extend a fist stops at my face. I

don't see Tami's many posts extending that far.

What is it that upsets you about all her posts? I'm really curious.

I don't want to make assumptions about what is going on in your

thoughts, so, please, share them.

From what you write, I draw the conclusion that you feel her numerous

posts pose some harm to this list. (Because, as others have pointed

out, one can simply skip over her posts if they don't appeal or seem

pointless). If you see her many posts as causing some damage, I'd

appreciate your clarifying what that damage is.

I have inquired and have no negative thoughts about Tami. From that

clear place it is obvious to me that Tami's behaviour still needs

boundaries

*****Why? What harm is being caused by Tami's behavior?

and so I need to take the appropriate social action. Yes,

Tami's involvement on this list is perfect but I am NOT going to make

that into a concept and assume that nothing about Tami's involvement

needs to change.

*****What you are going to do (or not do), we'll have to wait and

see. :-)))

[Guest guest]

Well, I see what Andy is talking about.

And I don't understand what you are talking about, nor where you are

coming from .

To me it looks like what you are stating is not where you are coming

from.

>> The analogy you present below appears inaccurate to me.

>>

>> The BK story is based on your being hungry. You want some

>> nourishment in the form of grilled fish, not what was served

>> (boiled vegetables). You've come to this list for some

>> intellectual/conceptual " nourishment. " SOME of the MANY dishes

>> served are the equivalent of the boiled vegetables (probably some

>> of MY posts!!). Your analogy breaks down here since on this list

>> there are OTHER forms of nourishment served (other people's posts

>> which might be more to your liking).

>

> Andy if you or anyone were to make ten posts a day with little or no

> relevance to the Work, then you would be serving us boiled

> vegetables to and I would probably remind you to post on topic or

> move on. Other forms like ACIM or scientology etc. are acceptable if

> discussed in relation to the Work. If I started a pure ACIM

> discussion I would be serving boiled vegetables just like Tami and

> hopefully I would be reminded that this was not an ACIM forum and

> asked to confine my posts to those with some relevance to the Work.

I find the waiter-statement irritating, as well, because you are not

asking for no " boiled vegetables " for you, but you assume, that NO

ONE (or at least a big majority on this list) does not want what you

call " boiled vegetables " , and you don't even let them speak for

themselves.

What's more, you call everyone, who does tolerate her posts,

" confused " and " passive " .

That way you look to me like someone who wants to save people (that

never asked you for help) from something they don't want to get rid off.

Actually I don't mind that, it shows your love for others.

And, it looks like a passive-agressive action. And the

acknowledgement of the judgement on you can lead to inquiry, again.

>> A more accurate analogy would be this: after you've placed your

>> order in the restaurant you are served boiled vegetables AND

>> grilled fish (Tami's posts as well as others). What is the

>> problem? Just leave the boiled vegetables alone and enjoy the

>> repast of grilled fish (read those posts that you find nourishing).

>

> Lets try another analogy to make my point clear. I join a

> mathematics discussion group to improve my knowledge of math.

> Another girl called Tami also joins, but instead of discussing

> mathematics she wants to discuss her imaginary love affair with

> someone called . Now would you let Tami continue her off-topic

> discussions or would you politely remind her that this was a

> discussion group for mathematics not her love life?

If I see a post that seems totally out of context and with no

apparent relation to the work (like " improve you golf to live a

stress-free life " or " start loosing weight and become the happy

person you always wanted to be " ) - I ask the one who posted it, where

the relevance to the work can be found.

Actually, I DO see a lot of reference to the work in Tami's posts.

And in her comments to posts from others. Her statements seem to come

from a pretty clear place to me. So much for you Mathematics-analogy.

And would you just send a kind reminder, or would you send - over

months - other non-topic related posts? I don't think you would, if

you did not truly believe that *your* posts WERE on topic.

>> I am still unclear why you can't just push the veggies aside

>> (simply not open Tami's posts). I asked you about that in the

>> previous post (an issue of bandwidth perhaps?), but you didn't

>> respond. Care to now?

> Andy why should I or anyone have to push Tami's posts aside? I

> belong to a few golf forums, now what do you think would happen to

> me if I started posting BK stuff there? Do you think the members

> would just push my posts aside? LOL ... in your dreams. I can

> guarantee you that if I made two BK posts I would be removed

> permanently from the list. Why should it be any different on this

> list for Tami when she posts off-topic?

Well: THIS IS NOT A GOLF-FORUM!

Got that?

Good.

>> You say it is not a question of Tami's posts doing damage, but

>> rather that you are not getting what you ordered (discussion of

>> the Work of BK). I do not see how Tami's many posts prevent your

>> getting what you ordered.

> If the discussion revolves around Tami's love life, then obviously I

> am not getting what I ordered. I joined this list to discuss the

> Work, not discuss how many orgasms Tami has!

Well, you are discussing neither. Did you notice?

>> Is it your thought that if - and when - Tami's posts no longer

>> appear on this list you will get what you want/ordered? I'm

>> confused (not an altogether unusually state! Hahaha!!!).......how

>> does the removal of Tami's posts get you what you want/ordered? I

>> am at a loss to see how her posts prevent valid, intelligent,

>> reasonable dialogue on The Work. Are you positing that when

>> others (inclined in a manner similar to you) arrive here the first

>> time and see her posts, they are turning tail and heading for the

>> hills, thus depriving you of what you ordered?

> Let's use the golf forum example again. If Tami stopped posting

> there, of course I would get what I ordered i.e. just golf posts.

> I cannot say definitively what effect Tami's off-topic posting has

> had on this list, but I do notice that many old BK students like

> Carol, Mona, , etc. post quite infrequently in this

> forum if at all. Pre-Tami those members were quite frequent

> contributors to this forum. Who knows maybe they logged on and waded

> through 100 off-topic Tami emails and gave up this list as a lost

> cause. LOL ... who knows!

Could be.

And without Tami they had stayed? Who knows?

But I do find much more peace NOT believing that they leaving had to

do with Tami's posts.

And with NOT believing that it were better for this forum (or for

ME, that is) if they posted more frequently.

Because they don't

> Have a beautiful day

Thank you!

And from your other post:

> Alas however, this is not an ideal world

you know, there's been a time where I thought so, too.

And I forgot why.

I want to know your opinion.

There MUST be more to it than some posts on a forum!

Love,

[Guest guest]

>

> Well, I see what Andy is talking about.

**So, you can relate to andy's story.

>

> And I don't understand what you are talking about, nor where you

are

> coming from .

**and what i hear is that you don't seem to be able to relate to

ltwbk's story, or see what he is talking about. can you find when

you have had a preference? can you find when you have communicated

that preference? can you find when someone has given you what you

have wanted when you asked for it? can you find when they havent?

and did you continue to try to get what you wanted? this allows me

to find where almost anyone may be coming from, at least it feels

that way to me, and feels like joining, not seperating, which i

prefer. how about you? what is hard for you to understand about

ltwbk not wanting tami's off topic posts here? im not asking you to

agree with it, can you understand him? why is it harder to

understand him than to understand tami's position, or andy's, or

anyone else's? your story? that's all i can find, how about you?

>

> To me it looks like what you are stating is not where you are

coming

> from.

**where is your proof? how can you know this? how can you know

where anyone is coming from? please show me this, i am interested

in how you draw this conclusion.

>

> >> The analogy you present below appears inaccurate to me.

> >>

> >> The BK story is based on your being hungry. You want some

> >> nourishment in the form of grilled fish, not what was served

> >> (boiled vegetables). You've come to this list for some

> >> intellectual/conceptual " nourishment. " SOME of the MANY dishes

> >> served are the equivalent of the boiled vegetables (probably

some

> >> of MY posts!!). Your analogy breaks down here since on this

list

> >> there are OTHER forms of nourishment served (other people's

posts

> >> which might be more to your liking).

> >

> > Andy if you or anyone were to make ten posts a day with little

or no

> > relevance to the Work, then you would be serving us boiled

> > vegetables to and I would probably remind you to post on topic or

> > move on. Other forms like ACIM or scientology etc. are

acceptable if

> > discussed in relation to the Work. If I started a pure ACIM

> > discussion I would be serving boiled vegetables just like Tami

and

> > hopefully I would be reminded that this was not an ACIM forum and

> > asked to confine my posts to those with some relevance to the

Work.

> I find the waiter-statement irritating,

***From here, it looks like you and ltwbk have much in common.

sometimes he seems to me to be irritated by some comments made on

this forum, and how can i know? he tells me he is at peace, i

believe him, however it 'looks' to me!

as well, because you are not

> asking for no " boiled vegetables " for you, but you assume,

**So, people should not assume???? Really?

that NO

> ONE (or at least a big majority on this list) does not want what

you

> call " boiled vegetables " , and you don't even let them speak for

> themselves.

***Who is not letting me/them speak for myself/themselves??? How is

he doing that???It seems that no one is stopping anyone else from

speaking for themselves to me. Where do you find this?

> What's more, you call everyone, who does tolerate her posts,

> " confused " and " passive " .

****I must have missed this one. Where did he say that EVEYONE who

tolerates 'her' posts is confused an passive?

>

> That way you look to me like someone who wants to save people

(that

> never asked you for help)

**, are you trying to save us from ltwbk trying to save

us? How do you know that no one has asked ltwbk for help???

from something they don't want to get rid off.

**I see him doing it for himself, regardless of what is said. and

again, this seems like someone speaking for 'others'....how do you

know what anyone wants to get rid of? that they havnet asked for it

here????

>

> Actually I don't mind that, it shows your love for others.

**NIce find. Can you find the rest of the things that show his love

for others???

>

> And, it looks like a passive-agressive action.

***Interesting. Have you seen other passive-aggressive action here

on the list? I have, especially from myself!!! And that seems

enough for me to deal with and point out in my lifetime!!

And the

> acknowledgement of the judgement on you can lead to inquiry, again.

>

> >> A more accurate analogy would be this: after you've placed your

> >> order in the restaurant you are served boiled vegetables AND

> >> grilled fish (Tami's posts as well as others). What is the

> >> problem? Just leave the boiled vegetables alone and enjoy the

> >> repast of grilled fish (read those posts that you find

nourishing).

> >

> > Lets try another analogy to make my point clear. I join a

> > mathematics discussion group to improve my knowledge of math.

> > Another girl called Tami also joins, but instead of discussing

> > mathematics she wants to discuss her imaginary love affair with

> > someone called . Now would you let Tami continue her off-

topic

> > discussions or would you politely remind her that this was a

> > discussion group for mathematics not her love life?

> If I see a post that seems totally out of context and with no

> apparent relation to the work (like " improve you golf to live a

> stress-free life " or " start loosing weight and become the happy

> person you always wanted to be " ) - I ask the one who posted it,

where

> the relevance to the work can be found.

>

> Actually, I DO see a lot of reference to the work in Tami's posts.

***Good. ANd can you understand how others could miss it??

> And in her comments to posts from others. Her statements seem to

come

> from a pretty clear place to me.

***Personally, I have seem amazing clarity and confusion from

everyone on this list at different times...so what? It is only my

own confusion that effects me or that I may be able to do anything

about, the way i see it.

So much for you Mathematics-analogy.

> And would you just send a kind reminder, or would you send - over

> months - other non-topic related posts? I don't think you would,

if

> you did not truly believe that *your* posts WERE on topic.

>

> >> I am still unclear why you can't just push the veggies aside

> >> (simply not open Tami's posts). I asked you about that in the

> >> previous post (an issue of bandwidth perhaps?), but you didn't

> >> respond. Care to now?

> > Andy why should I or anyone have to push Tami's posts aside? I

> > belong to a few golf forums, now what do you think would happen

to

> > me if I started posting BK stuff there? Do you think the members

> > would just push my posts aside? LOL ... in your dreams. I can

> > guarantee you that if I made two BK posts I would be removed

> > permanently from the list. Why should it be any different on this

> > list for Tami when she posts off-topic?

> Well: THIS IS NOT A GOLF-FORUM!

>

***And so what? Is there any reason that this forum should be run

any differently than any other forum? Is there any reason that

members should not want to find posts here that relate to the

discussion of the book " Loving What Is " and the material it presents?

> Got that?\

*** Have you?

>

> Good.

***Better.

>

>

>

>

> >> You say it is not a question of Tami's posts doing damage, but

> >> rather that you are not getting what you ordered (discussion of

> >> the Work of BK). I do not see how Tami's many posts prevent

your

> >> getting what you ordered.

> > If the discussion revolves around Tami's love life, then

obviously I

> > am not getting what I ordered. I joined this list to discuss the

> > Work, not discuss how many orgasms Tami has!

> Well, you are discussing neither. Did you notice?

>

> >> Is it your thought that if - and when - Tami's posts no longer

> >> appear on this list you will get what you want/ordered? I'm

> >> confused (not an altogether unusually state!

Hahaha!!!).......how

> >> does the removal of Tami's posts get you what you

want/ordered? I

> >> am at a loss to see how her posts prevent valid, intelligent,

> >> reasonable dialogue on The Work. Are you positing that when

> >> others (inclined in a manner similar to you) arrive here the

first

> >> time and see her posts, they are turning tail and heading for

the

> >> hills, thus depriving you of what you ordered?

> > Let's use the golf forum example again. If Tami stopped posting

> > there, of course I would get what I ordered i.e. just golf posts.

> > I cannot say definitively what effect Tami's off-topic posting

has

> > had on this list, but I do notice that many old BK students like

> > Carol, Mona, , etc. post quite infrequently in

this

> > forum if at all. Pre-Tami those members were quite frequent

> > contributors to this forum. Who knows maybe they logged on and

waded

> > through 100 off-topic Tami emails and gave up this list as a lost

> > cause. LOL ... who knows!

> Could be.

>

> And without Tami they had stayed? Who knows?

>

> But I do find much more peace NOT believing that they leaving had

to

> do with Tami's posts.

***Good that you find what is peaceful to you. And that doenst make

it true for anyone else. Which I'm sure you know.

***, I'd like to ask you: does it bother you that ltwbk would

attempt to have tami (or anyone else for that matter) removed from

this list for reasons that he has stated? have you questioned why

that would bothered you, if it does? and so far, i see that it

hasnt happened, that i know of. he does what he beleives to be

right, and we watch to see how it unfolds. where is the problem?

is there one? i mean from your perspective? and how does that

differ from anyone else having a problem with someone on this list?

I dont understand the distinquishment?

love catherine

> And with NOT believing that it were better for this forum (or

for

> ME, that is) if they posted more frequently.

>

> Because they don't

>

> > Have a beautiful day

> Thank you!

>

> And from your other post:

> > Alas however, this is not an ideal world

> you know, there's been a time where I thought so, too.

>

> And I forgot why.

>

> I want to know your opinion.

>

> There MUST be more to it than some posts on a forum!

>

>

> Love,

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Andy,

> #####A teaching that I've found to be valid is de Mello's

> comment that

>

> " We see people and things not as they are but as we are. "

>

> #####In my experience, we can NEVER see clearly what someone else is

> doing or not doing, nor can we accurately trust what we think are

> their motives.

>

> #####What is it, then, that we " see " ? What we " see " are our THOUGHTS

> about what APPEARS to be going on " outside " ourself. We can never

> actually SEE what is going on " outside " ourself since there is, in

> reality, no " in " or " out " side. This is what I've come to

> understand. It may or may not conform to your experience.

Do you remember how you came to see that that's true for yourself?

I don't.

Love,

[Guest guest]

Hi . In regard to the post below, you asked, " Do you

remember how you came to see that that's true for yourself? " What

are you referring to, specifically? I am not sure what you are

asking, so, if you would like a response, please clarify. Thank you.

Dear Andy,

> #####A teaching that I've found to be valid is de Mello's

> comment that

>

> " We see people and things not as they are but as we are. "

>

> #####In my experience, we can NEVER see clearly what someone else

is

> doing or not doing, nor can we accurately trust what we think are

> their motives.

>

> #####What is it, then, that we " see " ? What we " see " are our

THOUGHTS

> about what APPEARS to be going on " outside " ourself. We can never

> actually SEE what is going on " outside " ourself since there is, in

> reality, no " in " or " out " side. This is what I've come to

> understand. It may or may not conform to your experience.

Do you remember how you came to see that that's true for yourself?

I don't.

Love,

[Guest guest]

> Now we can apply this metaphor to what is happening on this list.

I

> join this list (walk into the restaurant) and order grilled fish

> (discussion on the Work of BK). The waiter (Tami) brings me boiled

> vegetables (Tami's posts about herself and her life). I politely

> explain to the waiter that I ordered grilled fish and could she

> please return the boiled vegetables to the kitchen.

Hi lovetheworkofbk,

When I walk into the restaurant I always ask for the menu. In this

restaurant the menu says:

" This group is for doing the work and for discussion. Be warned that

some people don't take themselves seriously, here. But if you do

need support in doing the work, or have questions related to the

work or any thoughts, please don't hesitate to post as there will

always be a member willing to help. I'd like to emphasize that there

is no need to hold back anything as you post here. Don't worry about

being too rude or harsh, just be who you are. And be as open as you

want to be. "

So this restaurant offers roasted chicken, grilled fish and boiled

vegetables (and warns you for that). Quite a variety to choose from.

If however the restaurant does not offer the menu of your choice, I

wouldn't go ten times to the same restaurant but go to another one

instead.

Best regards,

.

[Guest guest]

----->It's really weird, bizarre, strange....I can see Love's point

of view, and some of it comes across as valid. Simultaneously,

there is much of value in the responses and insights provided by

and . It's funny, agreeing with it all. With

that said, a few thoughts offered below.....

> Dear lovetheworkofbk ~

>

> The analogy you present below appears inaccurate to me.

>

> The BK story is based on your being hungry. You want some

> nourishment in the form of grilled fish, not what was served

> (boiled vegetables). You've come to this list for some

> intellectual/conceptual " nourishment. " SOME of the MANY dishes

> served are the equivalent of the boiled vegetables (probably some

> of MY posts!!). Your analogy breaks down here since on this list

> there are OTHER forms of nourishment served (other people's posts

> which might be more to your liking).

Andy if you or anyone were to make ten posts a day with little or no

relevance to the Work, then you would be serving us boiled

vegetables to and I would probably remind you to post on topic or

move on. Other forms like ACIM or scientology etc. are acceptable if

discussed in relation to the Work. If I started a pure ACIM

discussion I would be serving boiled vegetables just like Tami and

hopefully I would be reminded that this was not an ACIM forum and

asked to confine my posts to those with some relevance to the Work.

----->I find much to agree with here.

> A more accurate analogy would be this: after you've placed your

> order in the restaurant you are served boiled vegetables AND

> grilled fish (Tami's posts as well as others). What is the

> problem? Just leave the boiled vegetables alone and enjoy the

> repast of grilled fish (read those posts that you find nourishing).

Lets try another analogy to make my point clear. I join a

mathematics discussion group to improve my knowledge of math.

Another girl called Tami also joins, but instead of discussing

mathematics she wants to discuss her imaginary love affair with

someone called . Now would you let Tami continue her off-topic

discussions or would you politely remind her that this was a

discussion group for mathematics not her love life?

----->The honest answer is " I'll tell you once I do it. "

Hypotheticals are always risky: too much fantasy. I'm a bit

uncomfortable with your mathematics discussion group analogy. I see

this.....list/forum....as much broader than your analogy suggests

(although I can see a similarity). The imaginary (thought) answer

to your question is: I would politely remind her about what is and

is not appropriate, and if that was not adhered to, I'd remove her

(were I the moderator). Of course I'm speaking fiction now. It

becomes reality when and if it happens.

> I am still unclear why you can't just push the veggies aside

> (simply not open Tami's posts). I asked you about that in the

> previous post (an issue of bandwidth perhaps?), but you didn't

> respond. Care to now?

Andy why should I or anyone have to push Tami's posts aside?

----->It's not a matter of " should, " as I see it. ly, Love, I

just don't see it as a big deal. I don't read much of what she

writes. I just don't open the posts. It is not found to be a

bother at all, and certainly not worth all this hoopla. Having said

that, at the same time, there is substantial agreement with your

comments about establishing boundaries and asking (and perhaps

enforcing) adherence to said limits. I see no problem with that.

It all depends on the motive, the intention, behind the action.

I belong to a few golf forums, now what do you think would happen to

me if I started posting BK stuff there? Do you think the members

would just push my posts aside? LOL ... in your dreams. I can

guarantee you that if I made two BK posts I would be removed

permanently from the list. Why should it be any different on this

list for Tami when she posts off-topic?

----->Again, it's not a matter of " should. " It IS. And the current

status disagrees with your agenda (or should I say " preference " ) for

this List. I can find nothing inappropriate about that, or, about

your actions to get the content of the List back " on track. "

However, it seems that the tone and content of this list may have

evolved to be far broader than your thoughts about it, certainly

broader than a golf or mathematics forum. There is no opposition to

what you're attempting; I can see the validity. I just am not

invested enough in it to care. But I appreciate and can understand

how you do.

> You say it is not a question of Tami's posts doing damage, but

> rather that you are not getting what you ordered (discussion of

> the Work of BK). I do not see how Tami's many posts prevent your

> getting what you ordered.

>

If the discussion revolves around Tami's love life, then obviously I

am not getting what I ordered. I joined this list to discuss the

Work, not discuss how many orgasms Tami has!

----->Well, start a thread that has the potential to get you what

you ordered. I often find reactions/responses to what you write,

and so do some others, based on past experience here. So....the

ball's in your court! Oops! This isn't a basketball list.

Sorry. :-))) ....... just some light-hearted jocularity. I'm not

making fun of you or your quixotic quest. As I said above, I really

GET what you're saying and, in part, agree. There's just no stake

in the issue or the outcome.

> Is it your thought that if - and when - Tami's posts no longer

> appear on this list you will get what you want/ordered? I'm

> confused (not an altogether unusually state! Hahaha!!!).......how

> does the removal of Tami's posts get you what you want/ordered? I

> am at a loss to see how her posts prevent valid, intelligent,

> reasonable dialogue on The Work. Are you positing that when

> others (inclined in a manner similar to you) arrive here the first

> time and see her posts, they are turning tail and heading for the

> hills, thus depriving you of what you ordered?

>

Let's use the golf forum example again. If Tami stopped posting

there, of course I would get what I ordered i.e. just golf posts.

----->Ahhhh....JUST golf posts. The thought is that if Tami posted

one, or perhaps, two posts, daily, you wouldn't take issue. I

wonder where the cutoff is, what is the " critical mass " of posts

before it becomes an irritant? And you are perfectly within your

right to have such a cutoff number. Me, personally? As long as

there are other, stimulating posts (from you and others), I'm

sticking around.

I cannot say definitively what effect Tami's off-topic posting has

had on this list, but I do notice that many old BK students like

Carol, Mona, , etc. post quite infrequently in this

forum if at all. Pre-Tami those members were quite frequent

contributors to this forum. Who knows maybe they logged on and waded

through 100 off-topic Tami emails and gave up this list as a lost

cause. LOL ... who knows!

----->Perhaps. There are many possibilities.

Love, what I'm hearing here is disappointment (and of course what

I'm hearing is my own world). At some time, this List was one and

it is another way now, and you'd prefer the old way back again.

Just keep in mind, the absence of Tami's posts may not bring back

the old way.

As someone else suggested -- another valid pov I see -- you have the

option of beginning your OWN, strict, LWI List. Invite everyone,

but unsub abusers. Keep the content and direction along the

straight-and-narrow lines that YOU would prefer. That seems to be a

workable solution.

You may add, " But why should I HAVE to do that? We already HAVE

such a List available, right here? Why should one person

marginalize the rest of us here who would prefer to have it

the 'old' way? "

To which I can only say, " You may have to do that because at this

point in time this List has evolved into its current incarnation.

It is a 'work in progress,' and not a finished product. "

[Guest guest]

I was referring to:

> " We see people and things not as they are but as we are. "

Love,

---------------------------------

Yahoo! Messenger - kostenlos* mit Familie und Freunden von PC zu PC

telefonieren.

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

I feel there's two ways to answer your questions: one is to " just " answer

them, and the other is to take them in.

I'll try to do both.

Actually, I notice there's only one place where I do it.

And, I must ask you: if you want to reply to this post, please split it.

>> Well, I see what Andy is talking about.

**So, you can relate to andy's story.

Yes.

To this one, that is.

> And I don't understand what you are talking about, nor where you are

> coming from .

** and what i hear is that you don't seem to be able to relate to

** ltwbk's story, or see what he is talking about. can you find when

** you have had a preference?

Yes, several times a day.

** can you find when you have communicated that preference?

Yes, several times a day.

** can you find when someone has given you what you

** have wanted when you asked for it?

Yes, several times a day.

** can you find when they havent?

Yes, several times.

** and did you continue to try to get what you wanted?

Yes, several times.

** this allows me

** to find where almost anyone may be coming from, at least it feels

** that way to me, and feels like joining, not seperating, which i

** prefer. how about you? what is hard for you to understand about

** ltwbk not wanting tami's off topic posts here? im not asking you to

** agree with it, can you understand him?

Oh, I understand that he would not want them.

And that he'd ask for it stopping.

** why is it harder to

** understand him than to understand tami's position, or andy's, or

** anyone else's? your story? that's all i can find, how about you?

Of course my story. And it goes like this:

He is pretending that he's not stressed and at the same time putting down

people who don't agree with him. Which, for me, is a sign of stress. He's saying

to be blissful and at the same time comparing her behaviour with that of Nazi's

and punks, the posting to be equivalent to people running him over in his home

and spraying things on the wall. The pictures I get when I read his posts are

like having chaos around me, and someone (or me) telling me, " shhh, it's all ok,

you're happy and safe "

So this is how I react to the thought, when I think: he shouldn't just

pretend.

Now who'd I be without the thought that he is just pretending?

A more peaceful person, at least, while reading his posts.

I am just pretending. Sure, that his posts don't bother me.

And I don't understand where he's coming from, either.

> To me it looks like what you are stating is not where you are

> coming from.

**where is your proof? how can you know this? how can you know

**where anyone is coming from? please show me this, i am interested

**in how you draw this conclusion.

So, can I really know that?

One answer would be: he is messing up the list with posting posts about posts!

He could, of course, send a private message to the modeartor and ask for what

he wants. But instead he does it ALL publicly to... show off?

His whole behaviour looks very hippocryte to me.

The other answer is:

I can't know. What I see as superfluous in his message, he may see as

perfectly valid. And what I see as valid in Tami's postings, he may see as

superfluous. I could write HIM privately and tell him how to " behave " to get

what he wants.

So the answer is: No, I can't really know that.

How do I react when I believe the thought?

When I read his messages, I get angy, every time I project hippocryte

behaviour on him. I see him as annoying, which is painful in itself.

Who'd I be if I did not have the thought?

Accepting his point of view, and finding where he is right, maybe.

At least a much less stressed person.

TA: what I am stating is not where I am coming from.

Yes, that's true as well. If I want him to do it, I should learn it, first.

Then I can teach it.

> >> The analogy you present below appears inaccurate to me.

> >>

> >> The BK story is based on your being hungry. You want some

> >> nourishment in the form of grilled fish, not what was served

> >> (boiled vegetables). You've come to this list for some

> >> intellectual/conceptual " nourishment. " SOME of the MANY dishes

> >> served are the equivalent of the boiled vegetables (probably

> >> some

> >> of MY posts!!). Your analogy breaks down here since on this

> >> list

> >> there are OTHER forms of nourishment served (other people's

> >> posts

> >> which might be more to your liking).

> >

> > Andy if you or anyone were to make ten posts a day with little

> > or no

> > relevance to the Work, then you would be serving us boiled

> > vegetables to and I would probably remind you to post on topic or

> > move on. Other forms like ACIM or scientology etc. are

> > acceptable if

> > discussed in relation to the Work. If I started a pure ACIM

> > discussion I would be serving boiled vegetables just like Tami

> > and

> > hopefully I would be reminded that this was not an ACIM forum and

> > asked to confine my posts to those with some relevance to the

> > Work.

> I find the waiter-statement irritating,

**From here, it looks like you and ltwbk have much in common.

Yes, of course we do. But only everything.

**sometimes he seems to me to be irritated by some comments made on

**this forum, and how can i know? he tells me he is at peace, i

**believe him, however it 'looks' to me!

The laughs have a hysterical, denying flavour to me, sometimes.

And I can't know they are hysterical, or denying, at all.

He may come from another, even completely different, place, and be at peace

with everything, *although* it does not look like it to me. And I know, if I

wrote, what he writes, I would not feel at peace. I don't take people down if I

think it could matter to them. Because it hurts me, if I do.

> as well, because you are not

> asking for no " boiled vegetables " for you, but you assume,

**So, people should not assume???? Really?

That's not what I said.

> that NO

> ONE (or at least a big majority on this list) does not want what

> you

> call " boiled vegetables " , and you don't even let them speak for

> themselves.

**Who is not letting me/them speak for myself/themselves??? How is

**he doing that???It seems that no one is stopping anyone else from

**speaking for themselves to me. Where do you find this?

That's right. And *I* don't want to talk for others, because I think it could

stop them from speaking for themselves. And if I do, I like to ask them, if they

think what I think they think.

> What's more, you call everyone, who does tolerate her posts,

> " confused " and " passive " .

**I must have missed this one. Where did he say that EVEYONE who

**tolerates 'her' posts is confused an passive?

He didn't.

And he could remind me of that.

> That way you look to me like someone who wants to save people

> (that never asked you for help)

**, are you trying to save us from ltwbk trying to save

**us? How do you know that no one has asked ltwbk for help???

No, . If that was the case, I had him removed from the list long time

ago.

I am genuinely expressing what I feel. And he could answer.

And I see that you want to answer, as well.

> from something they don't want to get rid off.

**I see him doing it for himself, regardless of what is said. and

**again, this seems like someone speaking for 'others'....how do you

**know what anyone wants to get rid of?

When they ask? Like love asked to get rid of Tami's annoying posts?

**that they haven't asked for it here????

No one asked me? But ltwbk?

> Actually I don't mind that, it shows your love for others.

**Nice find. Can you find the rest of the things that show his love

**for others???

No. Can you help me?

> And, it looks like a passive-agressive action.

**Interesting. Have you seen other passive-aggressive action here

**on the list? I have, especially from myself!!!

Of course I have! Especially from YOU!!

You're the worst!

**And that seems enough for me to deal with and point out in my lifetime!!

The only way I know how to deal with it is to judge him, and to do the work on

it.

That's what I said here:

> And the acknowledgement of the judgement on you can lead to inquiry, again.

> >> A more accurate analogy would be this: after you've placed your

> >> order in the restaurant you are served boiled vegetables AND

> >> grilled fish (Tami's posts as well as others). What is the

> >> problem? Just leave the boiled vegetables alone and enjoy the

> >> repast of grilled fish (read those posts that you find

> >>nourishing).

> >

> > Lets try another analogy to make my point clear. I join a

> > mathematics discussion group to improve my knowledge of math.

> > Another girl called Tami also joins, but instead of discussing

> > mathematics she wants to discuss her imaginary love affair with

> > someone called . Now would you let Tami continue her off-

> > topic

> > discussions or would you politely remind her that this was a

> > discussion group for mathematics not her love life?

> If I see a post that seems totally out of context and with no

> apparent relation to the work (like " improve you golf to live a

> stress-free life " or " start loosing weight and become the happy

> person you always wanted to be " ) - I ask the one who posted it,

> where

> the relevance to the work can be found.

>

> Actually, I DO see a lot of reference to the work in Tami's posts.

**Good. And can you understand how others could miss it??

Others? Yes. Lovethework? I asked him often to see if he may have missed it.

> And in her comments to posts from others. Her statements seem to

> come from a pretty clear place to me.

**Personally, I have seem amazing clarity and confusion from

**everyone on this list at different times...so what? It is only my

**own confusion that effects me or that I may be able to do anything

**about, the way i see it.

, I'm loosing track, here.

So?

> So much for you Mathematics-analogy.

> And would you just send a kind reminder, or would you send - over

> months - other non-topic related posts? I don't think you would,

> if

> you did not truly believe that *your* posts WERE on topic.

>

> >> I am still unclear why you can't just push the veggies aside

> >> (simply not open Tami's posts). I asked you about that in the

> >> previous post (an issue of bandwidth perhaps?), but you didn't

> >> respond. Care to now?

> > Andy why should I or anyone have to push Tami's posts aside? I

> > belong to a few golf forums, now what do you think would happen

to

> > me if I started posting BK stuff there? Do you think the members

> > would just push my posts aside? LOL ... in your dreams. I can

> > guarantee you that if I made two BK posts I would be removed

> > permanently from the list. Why should it be any different on this

> > list for Tami when she posts off-topic?

> Well: THIS IS NOT A GOLF-FORUM!

**And so what? Is there any reason that this forum should be run

**any differently than any other forum? Is there any reason that

**members should not want to find posts here that relate to the

**discussion of the book " Loving What Is " and the material it presents?

:

1. It was a joke. (which I thought the smiley below would point out. oh, well)

2. the reason this forum should be run differently is:

a) *I* am running it!

It IS run differently.

> Got that?

*** Have you?

>

> Good.

***Better.

>

>

>

> >> You say it is not a question of Tami's posts doing damage, but

> >> rather that you are not getting what you ordered (discussion of

> >> the Work of BK). I do not see how Tami's many posts prevent

> >> your

> >> getting what you ordered.

> > If the discussion revolves around Tami's love life, then

> > obviously I

> > am not getting what I ordered. I joined this list to discuss the

> > Work, not discuss how many orgasms Tami has!

> Well, you are discussing neither. Did you notice?

>

> >> Is it your thought that if - and when - Tami's posts no longer

> >> appear on this list you will get what you want/ordered? I'm

> >> confused (not an altogether unusually state!

> >> Hahaha!!!).......how

> >> does the removal of Tami's posts get you what you

> >> want/ordered? I

> >> am at a loss to see how her posts prevent valid, intelligent,

> >> reasonable dialogue on The Work. Are you positing that when

> >> others (inclined in a manner similar to you) arrive here the

> >> first

> >> time and see her posts, they are turning tail and heading for

> >> the

> >> hills, thus depriving you of what you ordered?

> > Let's use the golf forum example again. If Tami stopped posting

> > there, of course I would get what I ordered i.e. just golf posts.

> > I cannot say definitively what effect Tami's off-topic posting

> > has

> > had on this list, but I do notice that many old BK students like

> > Carol, Mona, , etc. post quite infrequently in

> > this

> > forum if at all. Pre-Tami those members were quite frequent

> > contributors to this forum. Who knows maybe they logged on and

> > waded

> > through 100 off-topic Tami emails and gave up this list as a lost

> > cause. LOL ... who knows!

> Could be.

>

> And without Tami they had stayed? Who knows?

>

> But I do find much more peace NOT believing that they leaving had to

> do with Tami's posts.

**Good that you find what is peaceful to you. And that doenst make

**it true for anyone else. Which I'm sure you know.

Yes, I do.

**, I'd like to ask you: does it bother you that ltwbk would

**attempt to have tami (or anyone else for that matter) removed from

**this list for reasons that he has stated?

No.

**have you questioned why

**that would bothered you, if it does?

**and so far, i see that it

**hasnt happened, that i know of. he does what he beleives to be

**right, and we watch to see how it unfolds. where is the problem?

**is there one? i mean from your perspective? and how does that

**differ from anyone else having a problem with someone on this list?

Right, what bothers me?

His posts are getting annoying to me, and I don't see much relevance to the

work in them. He is preaching it, not following. I don't see it as useful to ME.

And that may just be what I see him seeing in Tami's posts.

But there's one difference: *I* make the choices here.

And I thought it would be kind to remind him of that.

**I dont understand the distinquishment?

Do you REALLY not?

What is your intent on this post?

Because your questions don't sound loving, at all.

They DO sound like you wanting me to do the work.

And I have not asked for your help.

I don't mind that. And some people could. I thought you might want to be aware

of that.

Love,

---------------------------------

Mit Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard lesen Sie nur die Mails, die Sie auch wirklich lesen

wollen.

[Guest guest]

>

> Dear ,

>

> I feel there's two ways to answer your questions: one is

to " just " answer them, and the other is to take them in.

***And it doesnt matter to me how you answer them. I ask to find

clarity for myself.

>

>> ** can you find when you have communicated that preference?

> Yes, several times a day.

>

> ** can you find when someone has given you what you

> ** have wanted when you asked for it?

> Yes, several times a day.

>

> ** can you find when they havent?

> Yes, several times.

>

> ** and did you continue to try to get what you wanted?

> Yes, several times.

>

> ** this allows me

> ** to find where almost anyone may be coming from, at least it

feels

> ** that way to me, and feels like joining, not seperating, which i

> ** prefer. how about you? what is hard for you to understand

about

> ** ltwbk not wanting tami's off topic posts here? im not asking

you to

> ** agree with it, can you understand him?

> Oh, I understand that he would not want them.

> And that he'd ask for it stopping.

>

> ** why is it harder to

> ** understand him than to understand tami's position, or andy's,

or

> ** anyone else's? your story? that's all i can find, how about

you?

> Of course my story. And it goes like this:

> He is pretending that he's not stressed and at the same time

putting down people who don't agree with him. Which, for me, is a

sign of stress.

***Yes, and only FOR YOU.

He's saying to be blissful and at the same time comparing her

behaviour with that of Nazi's and punks, the posting to be

equivalent to people running him over in his home and spraying

things on the wall.

***Wow. Okay, I missed this too.

The pictures I get when I read his posts are like having chaos

around me, and someone (or me) telling me, " shhh, it's all ok,

you're happy and safe "

***Sounds stressful.

> So this is how I react to the thought, when I think: he

shouldn't just pretend.

***Oh really. Now you know who is pretending and who isnt.

> Now who'd I be without the thought that he is just pretending?

> A more peaceful person, at least, while reading his posts.

> I am just pretending. Sure, that his posts don't bother me.

>

> And I don't understand where he's coming from, either.

***Really? All I see is someone believing their thoughts and taking

some actions as a result. What more is there to understand?

>

> > To me it looks like what you are stating is not where you are

> > coming from.

> **where is your proof? how can you know this? how can you know

> **where anyone is coming from? please show me this, i am

interested

> **in how you draw this conclusion.

> So, can I really know that?

> One answer would be: he is messing up the list with posting

posts about posts!

***Messing up the list by stating his preference? Where does it say

that we cant do this???? This does not make sense to me.

> He could, of course, send a private message to the modeartor and

ask for what he wants. But instead he does it ALL publicly to...

show off?

***Show off what???? Can you find one example of anyone who posts

here who isnt doing it to 'show off' ??? show off their thoughts?

and what is the problem wiht that? Where does it say in the rules

that we arent allowed to 'show off'?

> His whole behaviour looks very hippocryte to me.

***So what? How could it possibly affect you if his behaviour is

totally hypocritical?

> The other answer is:

***Thank you for your work here. I appreciate it.

> I can't know. .

> Yes, that's true as well. If I want him to do it, I should learn

it, first. Then I can teach it.

>

>> The laughs have a hysterical, denying flavour to me, sometimes.

>

> And I can't know they are hysterical, or denying, at all.

>

> He may come from another, even completely different, place, and

be at peace with everything, *although* it does not look like it to

me.

***Yes, and you can't 'know' it at all.

And I know, if I wrote, what he writes, I would not feel at peace.

***So dont write what he writes, if you want peace.

I don't take people down if I think it could matter to them. Because

it hurts me, if I do.

***Do you see someone taking people down here? Is that what you

think he is doing to Tami?

>

> > as well, because you are not

> > asking for no " boiled vegetables " for you, but you assume,

> **So, people should not assume???? Really?

> That's not what I said.

***OH, right. And you sound that way to me when you state 'but you

assume'..it doesnt seeem like you think it a good thing to do. and

i see that is my story.

>

> > that NO

> > ONE (or at least a big majority on this list) does not want what

> > you

> > call " boiled vegetables " , and you don't even let them speak for

> > themselves.

> **Who is not letting me/them speak for myself/themselves??? How is

> **he doing that???It seems that no one is stopping anyone else

from

> **speaking for themselves to me. Where do you find this?

> That's right.

***I still dont see how he 'doesnt let others speak for themselves "

And *I* don't want to talk for others, because I think it could

stop them from speaking for themselves. And if I do, I like to ask

them, if they think what I think they think.

***Good that you know what feels right to you. What has that got to

do with ltwbk?

>

> > That way you look to me like someone who wants to save people

> > (that never asked you for help)

> **, are you trying to save us from ltwbk trying to save

> **us? How do you know that no one has asked ltwbk for help???

> No, . If that was the case, I had him removed from the

list long time ago.

***Okay. I hear that. And I also heard you speak for 'others' when

you say 'they never asked you for help'. They implies that you are

speaking for 'them' and not yourself.

>

> I am genuinely expressing what I feel. And he could answer.

> And I see that you want to answer, as well.

****Yes. Does it matter who answers? This discussion helps me to

understand my thinking whether you direct it to ltwbk or anyone else.

>

>

> > from something they don't want to get rid off.

>

> **I see him doing it for himself, regardless of what is said. and

> **again, this seems like someone speaking for 'others'....how do

you

> **know what anyone wants to get rid of?

***Yes, and you assume to know somethng about other people's

preferences when you talk about 'they'....as in " from

something 'they dont want to get rid off' why not just speak for

yourself?

> When they ask?

***so if 'they' dont ask, it means they dont want? I dont think

so. I see I cant know what others want regardless of what they ask

for or dont ask for. My point is simply why bother to speak

for 'them' at all?

Like love asked to get rid of Tami's annoying posts?

>

> **that they haven't asked for it here????

> No one asked me? But ltwbk?

>

> > Actually I don't mind that, it shows your love for others.

> **Nice find. Can you find the rest of the things that show his

love

> **for others???

> No. Can you help me?

***No. And I see for myself that the more I question my thoughts

the more I see the love in all that is happeing here, regardless of

who puts there name on the post. I see it as a very loving thing

for ltwbk to express his views here and share his preferences, just

as loving as any post that tami or you or maria or i have written.

and it is still love when i find something he says rude, (and i find

rudenss happening, and unkindness from tami and maria and myself as

well) it is loving because i question my thoughts around it, and for

myself i see the love in them sharing who they are in the moment.

>

> > And, it looks like a passive-agressive action.

> **Interesting. Have you seen other passive-aggressive action here

> **on the list? I have, especially from myself!!!

> Of course I have! Especially from YOU!!

> You're the worst!

***Good. I love being the WORST!!!

>

> **And that seems enough for me to deal with and point out in my

lifetime!!

> The only way I know how to deal with it is to judge him, and to do

the work on it.

>

> That's what I said here:

> > And the acknowledgement of the judgement on you can lead to

inquiry, again.

***Yes, I see that now. I didnt understand it earlier.

>

>

> > And in her comments to posts from others. Her statements seem to

> > come from a pretty clear place to me.

> **Personally, I have seem amazing clarity and confusion from

> **everyone on this list at different times...so what? It is only

my

> **own confusion that effects me or that I may be able to do

anything

> **about, the way i see it.

> , I'm loosing track, here.

> So?

***So, why does it matter who seems clear and who doesnt? It is

your perception making that judgement. And seems irrelevant to me.

>

>

>

> > Well: THIS IS NOT A GOLF-FORUM!

>

> **And so what? Is there any reason that this forum should be run

> **any differently than any other forum? Is there any reason that

> **members should not want to find posts here that relate to the

> **discussion of the book " Loving What Is " and the material it

presents?

> :

> 1. It was a joke. (which I thought the smiley below would point

out. oh, well)

***Yes. I know. And I like the idea: 'many a truth spoken in jest'

and sometimes i like to respond to so called 'jokes' literally, to

clarify my own thoughts and see what response i get.

> 2. the reason this forum should be run differently is:

> a) *I* am running it!

> It IS run differently.

**okay.

> Right, what bothers me?

>

> His posts are getting annoying to me, and I don't see much

relevance to the work in them.

***oh my god. you sound like ltwbk.....

He is preaching it, not following. I don't see it as useful to ME.

***How can it not be useful to you? Only when you dont bother to

question your thoughts about him. As you say he is not doing....

sounds like more preaching to me...

> And that may just be what I see him seeing in Tami's posts.

> But there's one difference: *I* make the choices here.

***Sounds like testostorone speaking.

> And I thought it would be kind to remind him of that.

***Really? Your motive is kindness?

>

> **I dont understand the distinquishment?

> Do you REALLY not?

***No I REALLY do not ~ it is not real to me. I see it only in a

confused story, not in reality. and i am speaking for me only.

>

> What is your intent on this post?

***The same intent I have for every post. To ask questions to hear

my answers and try to find some clarity for myself.

>

> Because your questions don't sound loving, at all.

***Can you show me where you see this? How have I not been loving in

asking these questions? I'd like to understand this. from over

here, it is love that asks and responds and is curious.

>

> They DO sound like you wanting me to do the work.

***Did I say that???? Where???? I want you to do the work? lol I

wanted you to answer my questions, and i asked you for that. and if

i did want you to do the work, which i dont find inside of me, what

other motive could i have than my love for you? perhaps my love for

myself? i can live with that.

>

> And I have not asked for your help.

***I don't see myself giving you help. I see myself trying to help

myself by participating in this forum. You are always welcome to

Not respond to my post at any time.

>

> I don't mind that.

**Really.

And some people could.

***And are you saying it for the benefit of these imaginary 'some

people' ?

I thought you might want to be aware of that.

***Are you trying to help me be more aware? Actually, I am, and

thank you for your help.

>

> Love,

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Mit Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard lesen Sie nur die Mails, die Sie auch

wirklich lesen wollen.

>

>

[Guest guest]

> >

> > Dear ,

>

> > What is your intent on this post?

> > > Because your questions don't sound very loving .

> > Love,

> >

***Dear ,

I have been thinking about this question. A more honest answer may

be that I dont know what my intent was on that post. I feel

seperation and I am seeking some understanding because that

seperation feels painful to me. I am trying to find the place where

I can join you, tami, ltwbk, myself..etc.

and sometimes my intent is to point out what i see, to try to teach,

to try to express my frustration, to ask for clarification when

something seems confusing, to connect, to engage, to show i am right

and you are wrong, ...etc...and maybe there was some of all of that

in my intent for that post.

and I have NO doubt that Love is in it all, even though you say you

dont see/hear it.

love catherine

> >

> >

> > ---------------------------------

> > Mit Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard lesen Sie nur die Mails, die Sie auch

> wirklich lesen wollen.

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

Am 12.05.2006 um 20:04 schrieb catherineantle:

>

>>>

>>> Dear ,

>>

>>> What is your intent on this post?

>>>> Because your questions don't sound very loving .

>>> Love,

>>>

>

>

> ***Dear ,

>

> I have been thinking about this question. A more honest answer may

> be that I dont know what my intent was on that post. I feel

> seperation and I am seeking some understanding because that

> seperation feels painful to me. I am trying to find the place where

> I can join you, tami, ltwbk, myself..etc.

>

> and sometimes my intent is to point out what i see, to try to teach,

> to try to express my frustration, to ask for clarification when

> something seems confusing, to connect, to engage, to show i am right

> and you are wrong, ...etc...and maybe there was some of all of that

> in my intent for that post.

I really CAN relate to that.

It's a pretty stressful place, isn't it?

> and I have NO doubt that Love is in it all, even though you say you

> dont see/hear it.

You are probably right.

> love catherine

Love,

___________________________________________________________

Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

I notice a desire to answer this, again!

>> Dear ,

>>

>> I feel there's two ways to answer your questions: one is

>> to " just " answer them, and the other is to take them in.

> ***And it doesnt matter to me how you answer them. I ask to find

> clarity for myself.

Good.

....

>>> ** why is it harder to

>>> understand him than to understand tami's position, or andy's, or

>>> anyone else's? your story? that's all i can find, how about you?

>> Of course my story. And it goes like this:

>> He is pretending that he's not stressed and at the same time

>> putting down people who don't agree with him. Which, for me, is a

>> sign of stress.

> ***Yes, and only FOR YOU.

You know, that's all I can tell.

And if I see someone who may have stress, and does not ask for help,

I may not offer it too often, because I know that it can be annoying

to me.

And, what I do best, is still judging. If I " don't " judge (e.g. not

do it openly, but only inside) I don't get to investigate the thought.

>> He's saying to be blissful and at the same time comparing her

>> behaviour with that of Nazi's and punks, the posting to be

>> equivalent to people running him over in his home and spraying

>> things on the wall.

> ***Wow. Okay, I missed this too.

And I know that that doesn't say anything about his stress, either.

>> The pictures I get when I read his posts are like having chaos

>> around me, and someone (or me) telling me, " shhh, it's all ok,

>> you're happy and safe "

> ***Sounds stressful.

>

>> So this is how I react to the thought, when I think: he

>> shouldn't just pretend.

> ***Oh really. Now you know who is pretending and who isnt.

I know about me pretending he shouldn't pretend, yes.

I don't know if he is pretending or not. He may as well be. Or not.

His buisness, anyway.

>> Now who'd I be without the thought that he is just pretending?

>> A more peaceful person, at least, while reading his posts.

>> I am just pretending. Sure, that his posts don't bother me.

>>

>> And I don't understand where he's coming from, either.

> ***Really? All I see is someone believing their thoughts and taking

> some actions as a result. What more is there to understand?

You may not believe as many stories around it.

If I want to investigate into my stories, I have to acknowledge them,

first.

Now, if I don't know where you come from, I don't get a point of

reference, and I can't meet with you.

And ultimately, there is nothing to understand of course.

>>>> To me it looks like what you are stating is not where you are

>>>> coming from.

>>> **where is your proof? how can you know this? how can you know

>>> **where anyone is coming from? please show me this, i am

>>> interested

>>> **in how you draw this conclusion.

>> So, can I really know that?

>> One answer would be: he is messing up the list with posting

>> posts about posts!

> ***Messing up the list by stating his preference? Where does it say

> that we cant do this???? This does not make sense to me.

I get the feeling you didn't read the second answer, at this place,

did you?

It doesn't have to be said anywhere, if that is what I feel. And

feelings don't make " sense " , most of the time, do they?

And it's not about talking preference. It's about talking " who does

not do what I do is a doormat to terror " - I remember a post where he

stated, that (I know that doesn't prove anything, and even if so,

finding the guilty one doesn't relief pain from the victim) not

" doing " anything against Tami's posts is not standing up for oneself,

and if people had stood up for the jews, the nazis wouldn't have

gotten all that power (or something like that)

>> He could, of course, send a private message to the modeartor and

>> ask for what he wants. But instead he does it ALL publicly to...

>> show off?

> ***Show off what???? Can you find one example of anyone who posts

> here who isnt doing it to 'show off' ??? show off their thoughts?

> and what is the problem wiht that? Where does it say in the rules

> that we arent allowed to 'show off'?

Again, this is not about " allowance " You asked me where my proof is,

for where he is coming from. Now you ask me about rules he broke?

When I say I am annoyed at ltwofbk, because he shows off so much,

needs all the attention, etc. and do it " a lot " - whatever that is -

it would look like I am trying to show off.

>> His whole behaviour looks very hippocryte to me.

> ***So what? How could it possibly affect you if his behaviour is

> totally hypocritical?

Sweetheart, did you ask me what annoys me? What are you looking for?

My answers? Shouldn't it affect me?

I don't know how it could affect me. But you know, there's this

story, that... I am trying to find.

>> The other answer is:

> ***Thank you for your work here. I appreciate it.

>> I can't know. .

>> Yes, that's true as well. If I want him to do it, I should learn

>> it, first. Then I can teach it.

>>

>>> The laughs have a hysterical, denying flavour to me, sometimes.

>> And I can't know they are hysterical, or denying, at all.

>> He may come from another, even completely different, place, and

>> be at peace with everything, *although* it does not look like it to

>> me.

> ***Yes, and you can't 'know' it at all.

I never stated I would.

And yes, that's right.

I can't know anything.

And sometimes, it doesn't seem that way.

>> And I know, if I wrote, what he writes, I would not feel at peace.

> ***So dont write what he writes, if you want peace.

I'll remember that.

>> I don't take people down if I think it could matter to them. Because

>> it hurts me, if I do.

> ***Do you see someone taking people down here?

Yes, sometimes.

> Is that what you think he is doing to Tami?

Nope.

>>>> as well, because you are not

>>>> asking for no " boiled vegetables " for you, but you assume,

>>> **So, people should not assume???? Really?

>> That's not what I said.

> ***OH, right. And you sound that way to me when you state 'but you

> assume'..it doesnt seeem like you think it a good thing to do. and

> i see that is my story.

No, this was not about assuming, but about WHAT you assume.

It's not about you wearing clothes, but WHAT clothes you wear!

>>>> that NO ONE (or at least a big majority on this list) does not

>>>> want what

>>>> you call " boiled vegetables " , and you don't even let them speak for

>>>> themselves.

>>> **Who is not letting me/them speak for myself/themselves??? How is

>>> **he doing that???It seems that no one is stopping anyone else

>>> from

>>> **speaking for themselves to me. Where do you find this?

>> That's right.

> ***I still dont see how he 'doesnt let others speak for themselves "

>

>> And *I* don't want to talk for others, because I think it could

>> stop them from speaking for themselves. And if I do, I like to ask

>> them, if they think what I think they think.

> ***Good that you know what feels right to you. What has that got to

> do with ltwbk?

, this is about ME! Didn't you get it? Who cares about

ltwbk? Stop being so obsessed with him!

>>>> That way you look to me like someone who wants to save people

>>>> (that never asked you for help)

>>> **, are you trying to save us from ltwbk trying to save

>>> **us? How do you know that no one has asked ltwbk for help???

>> No, . If that was the case, I had him removed from the

>> list long time ago.

> ***Okay. I hear that. And I also heard you speak for 'others' when

> you say 'they never asked you for help'. They implies that you are

> speaking for 'them' and not yourself.

Well, I don't see that. I haven't heard anyone ask him for help, so I

assume no one did.

Did you? Then you can clear it out. If not, we'll have to ask ltwofbk

or other group members.

If I don't see any chicken cross the road, I can state " no chicken

crossed the road " . I may be utterly wrong, so what?

What's your point?

Well, from here on, I see I hadn't much more to say. As if I had to

say anything, so far.

So, I'll just close it here.

Have a good one,

___________________________________________________________

Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de

[Guest guest]

>

Hi ,

I see that I also want to answer the questions you 'seem' to be

asking me. As I read this over again, it is very clear to me that I

am asking these questions to try and point out where I see a story

running ~ and I may be doing that since for me, to be here on this

list and to post, it seems reasonable to think that I and other's

will do that for each other ~ that I appreciate someone pointing out

my story and how it conflicts with reality...and that this is a

loving thing to do when one is interested in inquiry. Now, i dont do

this to people in my everyday, regular life who have not shown any

interest in the work or who havent asked for it (and as you so

kindly reminded me, and i had already been aware of, it can be

annoying). I suppose for me, to be a part of this particular list

is to have 'asked' in some way to have your story pointed out by

others for your own sake and for theirs. It seems like a loving

this...and it seems reasonable to do that here on this forum Loving

What Is, which uses the book as a reference. I am saying this

because of previous comments made by people who seem annoyed or

surprised tht i would be implying that they may want to do the work

or question their stories...it's true. it seems reasonable to me to

come from that place since that is what the forum started out as for

me.

> Dear ,

>

> I notice a desire to answer this, again!

>

> >> Dear ,

> >>

> >> I feel there's two ways to answer your questions: one is

> >> to " just " answer them, and the other is to take them in.

> > ***And it doesnt matter to me how you answer them. I ask to find

> > clarity for myself.

> Good.

>

> ...

> >>> ** why is it harder to

> >>> understand him than to understand tami's position, or andy's,

or

> >>> anyone else's? your story? that's all i can find, how about

you?

> >> Of course my story. And it goes like this:

> >> He is pretending that he's not stressed and at the same time

> >> putting down people who don't agree with him. Which, for me, is

a

> >> sign of stress.

> > ***Yes, and only FOR YOU.

> You know, that's all I can tell.

***Yes, I noticed that.

>

> And if I see someone who may have stress, and does not ask for

help,

> I may not offer it too often, because I know that it can be

annoying

> to me.

***Yes, and you do that for yourself. I see that. And I'm not sure

what your point is, and that is okay. I was just pointing out that

you seemed to be speaking for ltwbk, and assuming that you knew what

he was feeling. I thought it would be helpful to you to have that

pointed out.....it is helpful to me, and thats why i do it.

>

> And, what I do best, is still judging.

***Me too.

If I " don't " judge (e.g. not

> do it openly, but only inside) I don't get to investigate the

thought.

***My experience is that it will always come back to me, sometimes

much louder the next time so that when it is painful enough i get it

out in the open and investigate.

>

> >> He's saying to be blissful and at the same time comparing her

> >> behaviour with that of Nazi's and punks, the posting to be

> >> equivalent to people running him over in his home and spraying

> >> things on the wall.

> > ***Wow. Okay, I missed this too.

> And I know that that doesn't say anything about his stress, either.

***And who cares about his stress? He can take care of his stress

in the way best for him, dont you think?

>

> >> The pictures I get when I read his posts are like having chaos

> >> around me, and someone (or me) telling me, " shhh, it's all ok,

> >> you're happy and safe "

> > ***Sounds stressful.

> >

> >> So this is how I react to the thought, when I think: he

> >> shouldn't just pretend.

> > ***Oh really. Now you know who is pretending and who isnt.

> I know about me pretending he shouldn't pretend, yes.

***That sounds more truthful to me.

>

> I don't know if he is pretending or not. He may as well be. Or not.

>

> His buisness, anyway.

***Yeah. Doesnt it feel more peaceful to really see that? It does

to me. Did you really feel it?

>

> >> Now who'd I be without the thought that he is just pretending?

> >> A more peaceful person, at least, while reading his posts.

> >> I am just pretending. Sure, that his posts don't bother me.

> >>

> >> And I don't understand where he's coming from, either.

> > ***Really? All I see is someone believing their thoughts and

taking

> > some actions as a result. What more is there to understand?

> You may not believe as many stories around it.

***And if I do, that is why I participate here and why I discuss and

be a part of this. Your story is mine and I know this. These

questions are for me, and I love where your answers take my mind and

show me my own story.

>

> If I want to investigate into my stories, I have to acknowledge

them,

> first.

***I hear you. And for me, I just work with the one that is causing

pain. For now , it is what I do. I suppose I sometimes need lots

of pain in order to acknowledge my story, and I can see how I may

want to look at that!!!

>

> Now, if I don't know where you come from, I don't get a point of

> reference, and I can't meet with you.

***I understand this and experience it this way too. It is why I

postd in response to you. And I also see that I cant really know

where some one comes from, only my story. And when I find that place

in myself, where I was doing what they seem to be doing, I find a

place that feels like joining. This is what prompted me to ask you

if you had preferences (several a day I believe you answered?) and

my point was just that i see ltwbk expressing his preference. and it

seemed it might be helpful to just see it that way. all his posts

about tami express his preference. i couldnt see why you were not

able to relate to that since you have several a day yourself.

>

> And ultimately, there is nothing to understand of course.

>

> >>>> To me it looks like what you are stating is not where you are

> >>>> coming from.

> >>> **where is your proof? how can you know this? how can you

know

> >>> **where anyone is coming from? please show me this, i am

> >>> interested

> >>> **in how you draw this conclusion.

> >> So, can I really know that?

> >> One answer would be: he is messing up the list with posting

> >> posts about posts!

> > ***Messing up the list by stating his preference? Where does it

say

> > that we cant do this???? This does not make sense to me.

> I get the feeling you didn't read the second answer, at this

place,

> did you?

***Yes, and I am just questioning that thought regardless of what

comes second.

>

> It doesn't have to be said anywhere, if that is what I feel. And

> feelings don't make " sense " , most of the time, do they?

***No, and that is why we inquire into our thoughts here isnt it??

So that we can find the source of our feelings....and deal with that.

and that seems to make 'sense' to me.

>

> And it's not about talking preference. It's about talking " who

does

> not do what I do is a doormat to terror "

***Well, I see someone expressing a preference, so for me it is

about that. I see for you it is different.

- I remember a post where he

> stated, that (I know that doesn't prove anything, and even if so,

> finding the guilty one doesn't relief pain from the victim) not

> " doing " anything against Tami's posts is not standing up for

oneself,

> and if people had stood up for the jews, the nazis wouldn't have

> gotten all that power (or something like that)

***So I see you go back in your excellent memory to find proof for

your story. Your mind does its job very well. I did not remember

this post at all, i see i was spared. And I prefer to no go back

too far, it does not seem to serve me.

> >> He could, of course, send a private message to the modeartor

and

> >> ask for what he wants. But instead he does it ALL publicly to...

> >> show off?

> > ***Show off what???? Can you find one example of anyone who

posts

> > here who isnt doing it to 'show off' ??? show off their

thoughts?

> > and what is the problem wiht that? Where does it say in the

rules

> > that we arent allowed to 'show off'?

> Again, this is not about " allowance " You asked me where my proof

is,

> for where he is coming from. Now you ask me about rules he broke?

***Yes...you make statements about him 'Showing Off'...and I didnt

see any proof for your statemnts. And to me it sounds like you

think that he should not be doing what you call " showing off " and

so, I questioned that. And I could be wrong, perhaps showingn off

is okay with you, and it didnt seem that way as you seemed to say

doing his post privately would be better.

>

> When I say I am annoyed at ltwofbk, because he shows off so much,

> needs all the attention, etc. and do it " a lot " - whatever that

is -

> it would look like I am trying to show off.

>

> >> His whole behaviour looks very hippocryte to me.

> > ***So what? How could it possibly affect you if his behaviour is

> > totally hypocritical?

> Sweetheart, did you ask me what annoys me?

**Yes, and then I ask so what to your answer in order to look

deeper.

What are you looking for?

***I am looking for why someone else being hippocrytical would

matter to me. And I am asking this in order to try to find where it

matters to me..why shouldnt someone else be hypoccritical? I have

to ask the question when it is there. To find the answer for myself.

> My answers? Shouldn't it affect me?

***I leave that to you. I ask these questions ultimately for myself

and as you know we pretend to ask eachother.

>

> I don't know how it could affect me. But you know, there's this

> story, that... I am trying to find.

***Yes, me too.

>

> >> The other answer is:

> > ***Thank you for your work here. I appreciate it.

> >> I can't know. .

> >> Yes, that's true as well. If I want him to do it, I should

learn

> >> it, first. Then I can teach it.

> >>

> >>> The laughs have a hysterical, denying flavour to me, sometimes.

> >> And I can't know they are hysterical, or denying, at all.

> >> He may come from another, even completely different, place,

and

> >> be at peace with everything, *although* it does not look like

it to

> >> me.

> > ***Yes, and you can't 'know' it at all.

> I never stated I would.

***NO you didnt. And I was saying it again so that I could hear it

again. I find that helpful when I say the truth and then go off in

my story again....by adding the 'althooough from over here.....blah

blah) So, again, doing what is helpful to me, as always.

>

> And yes, that's right.

>

> I can't know anything.

>

> And sometimes, it doesn't seem that way.

**Isnt that part of why we are here?

>

> >> And I know, if I wrote, what he writes, I would not feel at

peace.

> > ***So dont write what he writes, if you want peace.

> I'll remember that.

>

> >> I don't take people down if I think it could matter to them.

Because

> >> it hurts me, if I do.

> > ***Do you see someone taking people down here?

> Yes, sometimes.

***So, it is possible to take other's 'down', and I am not sure what

that means. Intersting thought.

***One of the things I find intersting is that I have seen times

when tami and maria have seemed to be trying to take ltwbk 'down'

thru posts that riduculed, and seemed to be attmpting to provoke and

seemed extremely unkind to me ~ and i didnt notice you attmpting to

address that at all. so, for me i do not see myself taking sides

here at all, i see myself questioning what seems like a double

standard. i dont see him needing me to protect me from them trying

to take him down, however, in terms of moderating this group, i do

not see that you have been objective in this regard. and i have

found it necessary , for myself, to try and express that.

>

> > Is that what you think he is doing to Tami?

> Nope.

***Okay. So who is trying to take anyone down, since you mentioned

it?

>

> >>>> as well, because you are not

> >>>> asking for no " boiled vegetables " for you, but you assume,

> >>> **So, people should not assume???? Really?

> >> That's not what I said.

> > ***OH, right. And you sound that way to me when you state 'but

you

> > assume'..it doesnt seeem like you think it a good thing to do.

and

> > i see that is my story.

> No, this was not about assuming, but about WHAT you assume.

***I dont see that it matters to me. My assumptions are always

wrong , always my story and nothing to do with reality.

>

> It's not about you wearing clothes, but WHAT clothes you wear!

**I dont agree.

>

> >>>> that NO ONE (or at least a big majority on this list) does

not

> >>>> want what

> >>>> you call " boiled vegetables " , and you don't even let them

speak for

> >>>> themselves.

> >>> **Who is not letting me/them speak for myself/themselves???

How is

> >>> **he doing that???It seems that no one is stopping anyone else

> >>> from

> >>> **speaking for themselves to me. Where do you find this?

> >> That's right.

> > ***I still dont see how he 'doesnt let others speak for

themselves "

> >

> >> And *I* don't want to talk for others, because I think it could

> >> stop them from speaking for themselves. And if I do, I like to

ask

> >> them, if they think what I think they think.

> > ***Good that you know what feels right to you. What has that

got to

> > do with ltwbk?

> , this is about ME! Didn't you get it? Who cares about

> ltwbk? Stop being so obsessed with him!

***Okay. I get it. And you seem to be doing what you ask him not

too..and it seems kind to me when someone points that out to me.

***ANd I notice I cant help myself;) (and the names dont mean much

to me....they jsut provoke the thoughts which are the real stuff to

deal with to me)

>

> >>>> That way you look to me like someone who wants to save people

> >>>> (that never asked you for help)

> >>> **, are you trying to save us from ltwbk trying to

save

> >>> **us? How do you know that no one has asked ltwbk for

help???

> >> No, . If that was the case, I had him removed from the

> >> list long time ago.

> > ***Okay. I hear that. And I also heard you speak for 'others'

when

> > you say 'they never asked you for help'. They implies that you

are

> > speaking for 'them' and not yourself.

> Well, I don't see that. I haven't heard anyone ask him for help,

***ANd my point was that just because you dont hear it doenst mean

it hastn happened. or has. simple. you dont know. that/s all.

so I

> assume no one did.

>

> Did you?

***It doesnt matter what I heard. I act on what I hear, and he acts

on what he hears. It is his business if someone asked him for help

or not.

Then you can clear it out. If not, we'll have to ask ltwofbk

***Why bother? I just rather not assume and let him do what he

wants with what he hears.

> or other group members.

>

> If I don't see any chicken cross the road, I can state " no

chicken

> crossed the road " . I may be utterly wrong, so what?

***Leave off the 'so what' and you get my point. Thats all. Just

good for me to notice.

>

> What's your point?

***See above . Maybe you will get my point. And if you dont, that

is okay, because I have gotten it.

>

> Well, from here on, I see I hadn't much more to say. As if I had

to

> say anything, so far.

>

> So, I'll just close it here.

***, when I write here, I am responding to you or whomever

in an attempt to see the story and get through it to reality. I do

it always for myself and my responses are just my spontaneous

reaction to what I read. It may or may not make any sense to anyone

else who reads. As says, if you dont get it, it wastn for

you. I hear that and like it. In this whole thing with tami and

love, i jsut saw a need for some balance...we love tami because

she's so free and real and we hate ltwbk because we see him as

uptight and conservative blah, blah, blah, and those are jsut our

stories about those people and all we are dealing withis our

thoughts about them both, and they are one and the same thing. this

is how i have come to see it for myself and i am just exercising my

freedom of expression in adding my thoughts to this forum...blah

blah blah...and none of it has to make sense to anyone else and if

it does great, i've done my job either way!

Take care

>

> Have a good one,

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ___________________________________________________________

> Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC:

http://messenger.yahoo.de

>