Actual Freedom ~ Commonly Raised Objections

Re: wow !

RESPONDENT: I see how conveniently the AFT has edited and pasted the correspondence to it’s advantage. Shallowness indeed runs deep !

..and it is precisely for these reasons Actualism is going to fail as a long term solution ..I’m unsubscribing from this group and I’m off Actualism practise until I see and hear that Actualism is indeed a successful practise to follow.

Good luck to everyone here !

RICHARD: G’day No. 32, Despite what you say you [quote] ‘see’ [endquote] it is not the case that The Actual Freedom Trust has edited and pasted my correspondence to The Actual Freedom Trust’s advantage (whatever that means).

It is actually the webmaster (currently Vineeto) who copy-pastes all my online correspondence onto The Actual Freedom Trust website’s archives and I have checked with her and she assured me that, apart from anonymising, correcting spelling, fixing typos, and the such-like, nothing has been edited-out at all.

To date I have written and posted five (5) emails to you on the ‘Yahoo Groups’ forum – this is the sixth – and they may all be accessed at the following URL in their entirety. Vis.:

Richard’s Correspondence On Mailing List ‘D’ with Correspondent No. 32: (www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listdcorrespondence/listd32.htm).

Alternatively, they can be accessed one-by-one at the following URLs. I have also coupled each of the corresponding ‘Yahoo Groups’ URL with each of those website links so that you can compare each and every post with each and every one of those archived emails. You will need to have java-scripting enabled to view the yellow ‘mouse-over’ in-line footnotes.

(Incidentally, the very first one has more of the original question’s context added, than I had re-inserted in my initial reply, so as to provide even more contextual embedding ... apart from that, what appears on the ‘Yahoo Groups’ forum is what appears on The Actual Freedom Trust website). Vis.:

December 19 2012 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/messages/12017
(www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listdcorrespondence/listd32.htm#19Dec12).

December 20 2012 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/messages/12032
(www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listdcorrespondence/listd32.htm#20Dec12).

December 21 2012 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/messages/12054
(www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listdcorrespondence/listd32.htm#21Dec12).

December 23 2012 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/messages/12077
(www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listdcorrespondence/listd32.htm#23Dec12).

December 25 2012 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/messages/12103
(www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listdcorrespondence/listd32.htm#25Dec12).

Regards, Richard.

*

Re: it is impossible to marry Actualism and Buddhism

RESPONDENT: G’day Richard I have catalogued the points of interest from this conversation on the Dho. This will help prevent another fool like me to waste time discussing such things with you. Right, eh ?

RICHARD: G’day No. 32, Whilst I am pleased to see you are trying to make it clear to pragmatic/ hardcore dharma practitioners that Buddhism is not Actualism (your emphasis on the fact I do *not* point out dukkha and the cessation of dukkha might very well drive it home to them), was it really necessary to resort to lying? Vis.:

[Respondent]: ‘Keep in mind however , the above link on the AFT does not depict everything that was spoken .. in fact *several things I’ve said have been totally removed*’. [emphasis added]. (dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message _boards/message/3819845#_19_message_3821207).

Nothing, absolutely nothing you said in any of my five (5) emails to you on the ‘Yahoo Groups’ forum has been edited-out ... let alone [quote] ‘totally removed’ [endquote].

Regards, Richard.

Re: it is impossible to marry Actualism and Buddhism

RESPONDENT No. 32: I see how conveniently the AFT has edited and pasted the correspondence to it’s advantage. Shallowness indeed runs deep !

..and it is precisely for these reasons Actualism is going to fail as a long term solution..I’m unsubscribing from this group and I’m off Actualism practise until I see and hear that Actualism is indeed a successful practise to follow.

Good luck to everyone here !

RICHARD: Despite what you say you [quote] ‘see’ [endquote] it is not the case that The Actual Freedom Trust has edited and pasted my correspondence to The Actual Freedom Trust’s advantage (whatever that means). [...] List D, No. 32, 27 December 2012

RESPONDENT No. 32: I have catalogued the points of interest from this conversation on the Dho. This will help prevent another fool like me to waste time discussing such things with you. Right, eh ?

RICHARD: Whilst I am pleased to see you are trying to make it clear to pragmatic/hardcore dharma practitioners that Buddhism is not Actualism (your emphasis on the fact I do *not* point out dukkha and the cessation of dukkha might very well drive it home to them) was it really necessary to resort to lying? Vis.:

[Respondent No. 32]: ‘Keep in mind however , the above link on the AFT does not depict everything that was spoken..in fact *several things I’ve said have been totally removed*’. [emphasis added].

Nothing, absolutely nothing you said in any of my five (5) emails to you on the ‘Yahoo Groups’ forum has been edited-out ... let alone [quote] ‘totally removed’ [endquote]. List D, No. 32, 27 December 2012a

CLAUDIU: I think there’s been a simple misunderstanding here, not intentional deceit (which the word ‘lying’ connotates). I believe No. 32 was referring to the parts of his emails to you that you did not reply to and thus did not quote in your responses to him. As it’s just your responses that are archived on the AFT website and not also the responses of the respondents, those parts of your conversation with No. 32 are not archived on the AFT site. [...].

I just thought I’d chip in because it’s clear to me this wasn’t a case of lying (intentional deceit) but rather two different yet reasonable understandings of the same situation.

RESPONDENT No. 37 (Sock Puppet ‘I’: how can Richard’s omission of a correspondent’s query re: the emotion of ‘wonder’ be a ‘simple misunderstanding’? [...]. this pussyfooting insincerity wasn’t worth dumping all that jet fuel for [Respondent]. call a spade a spade least you to be read as just another gullible patsy [...]. wake up man!

CLAUDIU: Chill out, yo. [...]. All of Richard’s emails are reproduced faithfully on the AFT. And yet, some of No. 32’s words are not on the AFT because No. 32’s emails are not reproduced there at all – only the parts Richard quoted for context in his own emails are. Neither party is lying, here.

Just a simple misunderstanding.

RICHARD: G’day Claudiu, How nice it would be were it all ‘just a simple misunderstanding’ where ‘neither party is lying’ (despite the fact ‘all of Richard’s emails are reproduced faithfully’ in the website’s archives), eh?

Here is the essence of the matter:

• [Respondent No. 32]: ‘(...) infact several things I’ve said have been totally removed’ [endquote].

Now, in order for those [quote] ‘several things I’ve said’ [endquote] to have even possibly been ‘totally removed’, before being ‘edited and pasted’ into the website’s archives, they do have to have been there in those posts of mine, at the ‘Yahoo Groups’ forum, in the first place.

Hence my ‘was it really necessary to resort to lying?’ query.

More to the point, what my co-respondent has done/is doing is quite nasty. Vis.:

1. He falsely asserted guile (‘see how conveniently the AFT ...’)

2. He falsely attributed deceit (‘... has edited and pasted’).

3. He falsely ascribed profiting (‘... to it’s advantage’).

4. He falsely asserted pelsy (‘shallowness indeed runs deep!’).

5. He falsely ascribed culpability (‘precisely for these reasons’).

6. He falsely attached malfunction (‘... Actualism is going to fail’).

7. He falsely appended suspicion (‘this has laid a serious doubt’).

8. He falsely attributed miscreation (‘the validity of the claims’).

9. He falsely asserted malice (‘more war-like than peace-like’).

Here is a useful term:

• [Smear Tactics]: smear tactics differ from normal discourse or debate in that they do not bear upon the issues or arguments in question. A smear is a simple attempt to malign a group or an individual and to attempt to undermine their credibility.

Smears often consist of ad hominem attacks in the form of unverifiable rumours and are often half-truths, distortions, or even outright lies; smear campaigns are often propagated by gossip spreading.

Even when the facts behind a smear are shown to lack proper foundation, the tactic is often effective because the target’s reputation is tarnished before the truth is known. Smears are also effective in diverting attention away from the matter in question and onto the individual or group. The target of the smear is typically forced to defend his reputation rather than focus on the previous issue.

Smear tactics are considered by many to be a low, disingenuous form of discourse; they are nevertheless very common’. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smear_campaign).

Did you notice how all this has indeed had the desired effect of ‘diverting attention away from the matter in question and onto the individual or group’?

In other words, what happened to his clearly expressed interest in ‘knowing the answer’ to that ‘very good question’ another had asked? Vis.:

• [Respondent No. 32]: ‘A very good question imho and I’m also interested in knowing the answer to this’ [endquote].

*

Lastly, for just one example of a classic smear tactic (posted onto another forum):

10.

• [Richard to Respondent No. 32]: ‘As there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to prevent you from practising the actualism method (enjoying and appreciating being alive, being here, each moment again), whilst you are typing those words/whilst you are reading these words, that is a go-sit-on-a-cushion-and-withdraw-from-physicality kind of cop-out’.

• [No. 32’s comments]: ..and what kind of cop outs would want to sail away on a private boat named MSV Actualis, eh?)
(dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/3819845#_19_message_3819859).

That ‘sail away on a private boat’ comment is, of course, totally at odds with what was unambiguously advertised: Vis.:

• http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/8190 Richard to the List at Large, 13 December 2009

Do you still maintain that ‘neither party is lying’?

Regards, Richard.

RESPONDENT: Look Richard, it seems you are not only idiot but deaf, I have been quite clear when saying that I didn’t want to give you a bit more of my time because you are a malicious being, a pure fallacy.

RICHARD: Yet it was you who chose to post an unsubstantiated critique, on a Mailing List specifically set-up for discussion, and not me.

RESPONDENT: I said you the following in the previous post: 1. You fled like a fearful rabbit the last time you have been here, you fled without saying a word when your hollow arguments were in danger because of peaceful questions. Is this your genuine concerned about Peace-on-earth and expounding Actual Freedom? Fallacy you are having this behaviour so often.

RICHARD: If I did, in fact, ‘flee like a fearful rabbit’ the last time I wrote to this Mailing List you might have a case ... but as I did not (and neither have you demonstrated that I did) then there is no substance to what you propose here.

(No. 1 of ‘Richard’s fallacies, etc.’ not substantiated).

RESPONDENT: 2. And you come back now with this shit of post asking about No. 40’s informations and comments on your fallacies when it is of public domain, when every fair member of listening-l knows it. How can you be so cynic man? It’s amazing!!

RICHARD: I have left the sequence at the top of this post ... if you care to look you will see that I specifically asked one thing and one thing only (three times):

• [Richard]: ‘I would appreciate your detailing of ‘Richard’s fallacies, etc.’ so as to comprehend just what it is that you see.

I was very clear and explicit because it is what you see that I am endeavouring to comprehend ... and not another’s pseudo-venting.

(No. 2 of ‘Richard’s fallacies, etc.’ not substantiated).

RESPONDENT: 3. You manipulate your conversations in this list, cutting them for your convenience and pasting it so in your web page.

RICHARD: I post a duplicate copy of all my correspondence, in toto, on my web page so as to save hunting through thousands of posts on various public mailing lists on the internet each time again and I never ‘cut them for my convenience’ (whatever that means) before I do so. Other than formatting and/or editing for anonymity, consistency, typo’s, spelling errors and so on, then what you see here is what appears there.

You will need to demonstrate the validity of what you say if I am to comprehend just what it is that you see.

(No. 3 of ‘Richard’s fallacies, etc.’ not substantiated).

RESPONDENT: ... [Your] help was in response to my ‘change of heart’ not my ‘it-wasn’t-a-PCE-2 1/2 years-after-the-fact’.

RICHARD: Okay ... and I appreciate that you acknowledge this. I have no further questions.

RESPONDENT: I see you have decided to cut your losses & run as you revert to your standard evasive tricks & stock phrases.

RICHARD: Here it is spelled-out sequentially ...

RESPONDENT: That is how YOU spell it out ...

RICHARD: As that is the way it happened it is indeed the way I spell it out.

RESPONDENT: Well thanks for demonstrating how your mind works. That’s the way it happened between your ears only.

RICHARD: Here is point No. 1 of that 5-point spelling-out ...

RESPONDENT: Here is Richard the Control Freak vainly attempting to direct the conversation yet again ...

RICHARD: Possible translation: I don’t want this conversation to be about the way the discussion actually happened.

RESPONDENT: ... you are a colossal bore ...

RICHARD: Possible translation: factually-based conversations are boring.

RESPONDENT: ... [Here is Richard ] still ignoring & glossing over all his fabrications & debating tricks & tactics ...

RICHARD: Possible translation: even though my diversionary tactics haven’t worked on Richard so far surely they will this time around.

RESPONDENT: ... in order to score more cheap points ...

RICHARD: Possible translation: I’ll just give my ploy of throwing his words back at him another go.

RESPONDENT: ... and enter yet one more hollow victory ...

RICHARD: Possible translation: if I keep on insisting that what is central to my argument is just one shred of semantics, a pathetically minor technicality, another pedantic loop-hole, that little chicken bone, the irrelevant loop-hole, I can go on pretending that all this egg on my face is really the latest thing in beauty-treatment.

RESPONDENT: ... into his carefully Control-freaked & edited archives for posterity.

RICHARD: Possible translation: I will never, ever, admit that his factually-based conversations are not edited before archiving.

Actual Freedom Homepage