I’m not sure he claims to have offered a path to wisdom and enlightenment through Catholicism in his tracts, nor do I think anyone’s interpreted them that way :). However, you’re right that he has claimed to be an authority on Catholicism, and his lies about the religion have made life difficult for Catholics in some cases. And he rightly gets excoriated for his unethical actions.
Good catch! 
Daniel
I sometimes wonder if there is a record for moved threads—that is, an OP that started in GQ, was moved to CS, then GD, then to the pit… or is the limit on how many times a thread will move? But that would be a post for ATMB, wouldn’t it?
I also sometimes wonder if there is a word/phrase for this type of an in-thread train wreck. I don’t mean to denigrate GhramW (this is still GD, isn’t it?) or comment on the validity of his/her points. But his or her debate style runs quite contrary to the common/popular conception of board conventions. Again, this isn’t meant to reflect on the merits of either particular style. It’s just that GhramW’s particular style follows a certain pattern, one that needs an adjective. Perhaps thinking of threads like this as being FORMERAGENTED would suffice?
Anyway, there is an OP, isn’t there? Oh yeah. I read Castaneda a looonnnng time ago, after being given a copy by someone whose recommendation I took at face value. Ooooohhh! I thought. Many so-called inner truths and wisdom were just outside the range of my perceptions and experiences. Wowza. But then I grew older, ostensibly wiser, and came to see the book as a work of fiction that was—at best—Inspired by a True Story. Perhaps similar to the opening credit of Oh Brother Where Art Thou? It’s based on the Iliad, but not really based on the Iliad. Or something like that. Be that as it may, I dare say on reading through it (and the second and third ones, I think) with an open mind allowed one to undergo some sort of personal introspection. Sort of like watching Baraka—no overt spiritualism or secrets necessary, just personal thought and reflection in the right frame of mind.
So before I head too deep into MPSIMS, here’s my comment for this thread. How do you folks feel about such works as Journey to the West/Monkey and other books of similar bent? I may be misremembering certain things about the book’s background, but IIRC aside from the obvious allegorical events it was supposed to be based on facts. If JthW/M doesn’t quite fit my question, [del]well then you’ll have to go out and buy the book and prove me wrong[/del] I apologize. What about Mencious? How much of his philosophy should be discounted because he probably didn’t really speak with a king on the ramparts? Perhaps I’m wrong on both these quick examples, but I’m sure that there are texts out there that fit the spirit of this side question, and finding an example isn’t strictly necessary (unless someone can think of a good reason why).
The point here certainly isn’t to try and justify Castaneda’s works. It’s to ask, within the confines of a GD thread, at what point (and by how much) should you discount the message of an author’s work based on his or her shenanigans?
Rhythm
<---- These last two paragraphs. Look at them.
States he wants material made available, right?
Well, I made material available. And what did I get for my trouble? I was humiliated by people questioning my mental stability. I was accused of trying to waste peoples time. I was trashed by people telling me that I was trying to get them to throw their money away.
Exapano says, does he not?, that if I don’t divulge my material(s) that support my claims that there’s something to mystisism in general, and Michelle Remembers in particularly, that he’ll hold me in “utter contempt.”
And so look what happened?
I was decent enough to make a deal. A person only had to read MR and be willing to purchase some other not-too-expensive materials, and from there we’d go dot connecting, yes? And do any of you (whiners) remember too that I said it would be required that my INSTRUCTIONS BE FOLLOWED TO THE LETTER?
And so what happened? One(!) person among several balkers, decided to do a half-ass effort by (supposedly) buying and reading the book (all in 24 hours no less).
And then what happened?
Why the fellow threw a fit about keeping the rest of the deal! That is, he couldn’t see himself getting a hold of The Doors movie or FOLLOWING MY INSTRUCTIONS TO THE LETTER. And so all of you people who thought yourselves to be more in tune with reality, or thought yourselves so superior to me, decided to take his side and form a united front against me, the new guy.
And did I not say right up front that all of the things that so concern me are very strange and involved? And yet you people act like you’re on supercharged bulldozers … reving up your engines to hurry me along.
Does the word finesse mean anything to you? Have you not heard that the devil is in the details?
If you want to see who the real goofballs are, then peruse from the original post of this thread on down through this one AND FEEL EMBARRASSED.
I am a stickler for details when it concerns important things. That’s why I asked right up front that things be done my way, not your way.
I need to try and get some sleep now. I know there were some good questions you asked, I’ll get to those after I (finally) get some sleep. Thanks.
You didn’t make ANY material available, just told us to go and rent some movie and read a book, then you’d give us “clues.” That’s not providing a source, that’s a treasure hunt. While treasure hunts can be fun, they’re not the way to prove your case in a debate, especially here.
As for following your instructions TO THE LETTER, why should we, when you won’t honor the standard practices and habits of this board that we consider important?
Just as an experiment, why not stop insulting those who merely disagree with you?
I’m going to explain something to you, and I want to you to read my explanation TO THE LETTER…
We’re not forming a united front against you because you’re “the new guy”. We’re forming a united front against you because you’re claiming extraordinary things as “fact” and providing no evidence other than a well-refuted book and some sort of scavenger hunt. The fact is that if there were something to what you’re telling us, we wouldn’t have to “FOLLOW [YOUR] INSTRUCTIONS TO THE LETTER”. The evidence would be clear or at least discernible no matter how we read it. Your insistence on slavish devotion to your method is the mark of delusion and conspiracy-theorism. If we find nothing in your evidence when reading it in OUR way, then we’re going to find nothing in your evidence when reading it in your way.
Meanwhile, “Michelle Remembers” looks to me like the biggest load of bushwah ever published as a serious work of non-fiction, full of completely ridiculous secret conspiracies involving huge numbers of people which are nevertheless totally invisible to “normal” America. Have you ever heard the saying that the only way to really keep a secret is to be the only one who knows it? There’s some truth in that. If the number of people involved in this Satanic cult were actually as huge as you seem to imagine, it would be all over every paper and news website in the world, instead of being a secret still.
Frankly, we’re against your theory here because there is no THERE there.
Canada, not America. :smack:
Only since that idiot H Ross Perot corrupted the expression. The original statement, made popular by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, is “God is in the details.”
Now, the following statement was addressed to you as well as any other poster to this thread:
so I really do not want to see references to whiners or goofballs or other similar namecalling in your posts.
Graham, I want you to consider one more experiment–although I’ve got no evidence that you’ll do so. I have what I consider incontrovertible proof–and I seriously mean this–that your theory about Michelle Remembers is false. I am happy to lay it out for you, but it’s going to mean that you follow my instructions TO THE LETTER. I am not kidding about this.
Are you willing to follow my instructions TO THE LETTER? Because honestly, I think that not only will following these instructions blow your world, I think it’ll also make you a happier, healthier person. It will change the way you live. But you must follow my instructions to the letter, as I lay them out for you.
Let me know if you’re willing to accept my offer. If you’re not, please explain why I, or anyone else, should accept yours.
Daniel
H. Ross Perot? I think it’s much older than that.
http://plateaupress.com.au/wfw/devilint.htm
I feel awful introducing a cite into this thread. Wait a second, no, I don’t. What’s awful is that I never get tired of saying “I told you so.”
And yet, all the dated citations are for the “God” references while the “devil” references are simply supposed to tag along with no explicit citation.
Perot is the twit who popularized the “devil” version in recent memory. I’m open to seeing an earlier “devil” citation, but I have not seen one, yet.
Does it help, Tom, that the above quoted phrase is cited in german, which I’m pretty sure H. Ross Perot doesn’t speak? I would assume, therefore, it had an existance preceeding him.
I did find an article on the origin of the phrase in the archives of the Atlantic Monthly… but I can’t read it. It’s subscription only.
Link here. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/01/001wordcourt.htm
http://socioblogue.weblog.com.pt/arquivo/013185.php
Personally, I heard it before Perot ran, from engineer types. Which is probably where he picked up the phrase, from his IBM connections.
This seems to be the article excerpted. She simply states it was less common, but both were used ‘decades ago.’
<minor hijack>
Graham, I’ve noticed that you do an awful lot of sleeping… almost every post has a reference to you going to take a nap, or just waking from a nap, or taking sleeping pills. Even posts at 10AM, or 5PM. Based on your posts here, I’m going to gently echo other peoples’ concerns; that you may be suffering from significant depression, and that this is fueling an episode of paranoia. Have you spoken recently with a professional about your theories?
</minor hijack>
Er, the second link is the article excerpted. I don’t know how that line got moved around like that.
Well, doing my part to fight ignorance, I thought you people might want to read this article. It speaks for itself.
Yep. It does.
Following the identification of a priest in connection with the murder of a sister 25 years ago, a small group of women decided to claim that he had also abused them. Given the current issues with pedophilia among clerics, the Diocese of Toledo took the responsible step of hiring investigators to look into the charges. Following their responsibilities to discover and prosecute criminal activities, the various local police departments and prosecutors’ offices have joined the probe–the probe that has, so far, turned up nothing.
The one actual statement that was reported by an alleged victim was that the accused used “candles” and “rituals” in an effort to scare the victims to silence, although there is no mention, regarding the “rituals,” of injuries inflicted upon the children or of animals or babies being harmed.
So, thus far, we have a report that might indicate either a priest engaging in pedophilia while play-acting in ways to keep the victims silent or may be either confused memories or wholly invented allegations by persons who were never actually involved. Given that pedophilia is a real problem and that there have been numerous cases of false claims regarding ritual abuse, the thing that the story tells us is that one more accusation, possibly true, possibly false, has been lodged and is being investigated. Beyond that, anything the story “speaks” to is in the eye of the beholder.
I wish the part you would do to fight ignorance would be to address the many germane, difficult questions which have been set before you. Adding new issues to the table instead of addressing the ones currently on the table is a little like pointing off in the distance and crying, “Look! A three-headed monkey!”
Daniel
I appreciate the sincere nature of your question.
Ah, sure, I’m depressed; but why should I not be? Besides the general sorrow of the human condition – i.e. young Americans dying in Iraq on account of politicians having zero vision to get us the hell off oil – I’m sick about my inability to get anyone to get off their duffs to take a look at the issues I brought up here. Everyone has an excuse to sit back and pick at their toes in front of thier computers and mock me and claim that I’m onto nothing, even though – amazingly! – not one of them has bothered to take me seriously and check things out.
FYI, yes, in desperation I did go see a shrink a couple of summers ago. I’ve never had a high opinion of people in that field of work (though I’m sure they do a good service in so far as helping people that have their body chemistry out of wack), as they tend to not have a clue about the basic, underlining problem with humanity – i.e. a great spiritual war between good and evil.
I sat in the shrink’s chair and told him that I am a messinger and revealer of things sent into the world by Jesus, and that I have a TON of objective materials to support my claim. But of course, like all the walking dead people commenting in this place, he didn’t give me any indication that he believed me or that he cared. He was just another secularist that came out of retirement … and I was the schmuck putting a $125.00 of my hard-earned money into his pocket (probably so he could treat himself and his wife to a nice dinner and a bottle of wine).
I take some consolation in the fact that I have it on the highest authority that I am the one to make things known (though I have no desire to go into it). But it pains me to know that while I continue to go through this nonsense of saying, “Please oh great person, would you mind looking at somethings?” and getting no where … while I know that a certain monster from hell is getting away with committing the worst kind of harm to others (while going around with a loving smile and talking to people about her great love for humanity and crap!).
OK.
Let’s open the table to alternative for you, Graham.
Have you started a regular excersise routine?
If we posit for a moment that you’re correct, then you’ve been told by the highest authority that you are the one to make things known.
However, as soon as people express any doubt, or ask for you to give them material in a means that THEY can understand instead of a means that is most preferable to you, you succumb to your lack of desire to go into it.
Aren’t you therefore contravening the highest authority? If you’re right, shouldn’t you be out on the street corner performing mime to get people to pay attention to you? Shouldn’t you be laying the facts out as rapidly and in as many ways as you can? Shouldn’t you be meeting all objections in a forthright manner, instead of calling people names in a way that is certain to alienate them from whatever information the highest authority has told you to disseminate?
It seems to me that:
I also think that you’re dodging questions about the veracity of your claims. Look around in other threads around here. Folks meet with skepticism all the time: pay attention to how others respond, and compare their responses to yours. Is it possible that you’re dodging such questions because you’re afraid of the answers to them?
Daniel