Steve Clarke has JUDGED you all!

[Sinny]

Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[wags]

I was judged to benefit from reading 'Children of the lie' and was a little unsettled and found this review of the book and it explains probably why. The book to read is 'Without Conscience' by Hare (Br Columbia).

http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews ... Descending

[LuisP]

The fact that its author M.Scott Peg is the same one of “A Road Less Traveled” - a book you have recommended in the past – may have a meaningful explanation.

But your advice Wags, seems to me to miss the mark given the context in which Mr. Peg’s book was referenced.
With that fact present, I’d think “Evil” - and not mere psychopathy traits such as those addressed by your Mr. Hare - is exactly what was on the referencee’s mind.

That man's in trouble.

[wags]

The fact that its author M.Scott Peg is the same one of “A Road Less Traveled” - a book you have recommended in the past – may have a meaningful explanation.

But your advice Wags, seems to me to miss the mark given the context in which Mr. Peg’s book was referenced.
With that fact present, I’d think “Evil” - and not mere psychopathy traits such as those addressed by your Mr. Hare - is exactly what was on the referencee’s mind.

That man's in trouble.

The judge was not thinking of 'The road less travelled'

My advice was that Hare's work is a better one, and avoids the reviewers problems with it,

Doing Evil ultimately is a freewill choice, as to the fine detail of what and who defines evil are well encapsulated with the title of Hare's book, "Without Conscience£ as it is encapsulated in the 'Road less travelled'. I cannot define my cognitive dissonance at why I felt a dark intent at the suggestion of that specific book, only that it turned me away from it. I am not reviewing or intend to be in a position to review that recommended book.

[wags]

I think this link is also relevant, it made my day when I saw this Earlier.

http://www.thinkinghumanity.com/2014/10 ... thers.html

[StarCat]

The eponymous founder of this thread informed me that we don't have intelligent conversations on this forum. Just thought I would share that. We had a bit of a lover's quarrel via email.

Cat

[wags]

The eponymous founder of this thread informed me that we don't have intelligent conversations on this forum. Just thought I would share that. We had a bit of a lover's quarrel via email.

Cat

Is he still confused?

[StarCat]

He's best qualified to answer that question. I'm a nurse. Diagnosis is beyond my scope of practice.

Cat

[Mikado14]

The eponymous founder of this thread informed me that we don't have intelligent conversations on this forum. Just thought I would share that. We had a bit of a lover's quarrel via email.

Cat

If one were to read the posts of that "eponymous founder" as to the measure of intelligent conversations on this forum, one only needs to look at the title of this thread of the person who is making that claim.

Judge not lest ye be judged. Perhaps a better anecdote would be "Ye reap what ye sow" and that "eponymous founder" never sowed a crop.

Mikado

[wags]

Talking about emails, this may provide illumination on things. (I don't need to go through every point but it may help appreciate FB's approach. It was written a year ago...

FB Writes:-

I wrote this to you some time back, but never sent it...

From where I sit, with 35 years on and off of knowing you, you seem to confuse "harmful to you" with "harmful to your self image".

I can speak of this character flaw because I have suffered from it myself, on many occasions, but lest I be accused of "projecting", I'm quite sure I am not. I am observing, and passing on a warning.

When I first became aware of this flaw in myself, I also realised that if I didn't make some changes, I could only expect to die alone (probably under medical supervision) with very few people to care.

That might still happen, but at least I get to live a bit first.

It was getting insane on the token for you, no questions. It got insane in a very similar way for the Hutchisons, Luis, Mikado, Soloma, and quite a few other people. The thing about being on the "wrong side", is that most people pick what they believe is the right side for them.

Think about it. ALL THIS IS ABOUT 1 MAN. Thomas Townsend Brown. He de MAN. He obtained the patents, did the work, made the speakers, lifters, discs etc. etc. HIM. The nearest thing we have to him is his daughter, Linda. She guards protects and promotes his legacy to the best of her ability. Out of love, cos it sure doesn't make her life easier or richer.. If it wasn't for her there woudln't BE any of this. His legacy would have got swept under the carpet properly like Tesla's did. She opposes the forces that would keep us ignorant. Which side did you pick? How can that be a great choice?

I know you don't get the best out of people, despite trying really hard to be one of the good guys.
I get how frustrating that is, year after year, and I've tried to give you some useful tools, (Games People Play, People of the lie, real useful tools to someone in your position.) but you don't even want to pick 'em up! Choosing to go with the side that talks to YOU nice whilst trashing everyone else, is NEVER a good idea. (How good for you were Ian Strachan and Phil Reynolds? Do you tell stories about stuff you did with them? Or did they just blow smoke up your arse for as long as you suited them?) Apart from Mikado who has at least done a small bit of work, which of these people on the hut have done ANYTHING to advance the cause of TTB? Hobbit for example. Where has he helped despite being involved since 2007?

Why on earth did you have to make a choice anyway? You are supposed to be the level headed one of us! Why did you let your options get closed off like that? Do you really think that this interchange here is better somehow that helping to run the Resolute E/G speaker project would have been?

Needless to say I was not pleased to receive it. My response is as follows:-


(F.B),

I am writing to thank you for delivering my amp to (Family home), I was at my Step Dads Funeral and I realised I had not actually thanked you. I have just reread this message and feel I can answer a couple of points that may be of mutual use.

I have given some thought over the first statement as it is a very salient point though I disagree with the initial premise that ‘Harmful to me’ and ‘Harmful to my self image’ are mutually exclusive from each other. I think that my perception of who I am is not subject to being subjugated by a third party, as a general principle, it is a way of trying to assert dominance over another. Whoever said that was a flaw to you is not being decent with you. I would challenge your own conclusions on this. I have considered this further and can see that your thought has much to commend it such as a measure of unhappiness: Where the gap between who we think we are and what others define us to be. Think it through and you may find it helpful.

I would not say this gap in either one of us, is zero but thanks for making me consider it. I am not as concerned

The second issue is a factual one that I think I need to respond to in relation to always being around when you have had ‘serious disputes’, such as Strachan, Beckett et al, Cashmore, I have realised that I was not around.

On the TTB / Science questions our approaches are different based on our different backgrounds, and though these backgrounds clash, I respect we disagree about the ‘viability’ probability of anything tangible. It was all a bit to fungible for me to cope with.

Take Care

FB decided he had a couple of points he wished to draw to my attention:-


This line lies at the centre of things.

"I think that my perception of who I am is not subject to being subjugated by a third party"

"That supernatural arrogance can only come from one place!", Enid might say, or "Subject insists on maintaining a disconnect between their subjective experience and the shared subjective experience of his fellows", A psychobabblist might postulate or
I might say; "Spoken like a true loner".

The problem lies also in that being possessed of different parts of the puzzle, we each are convinced that we are somehow "wiser" than the other.

And so ended that discussion. I have a lot of faults but I do not think FB is the best position to 'Judge'.