XPost: alt.religion.eckankar, alt.meditation.shabda   
   From: gruendemann@worldnet.att.net   
      
   empty room wrote:   
   >   
   > On Sat, 21 May 2005 19:19:27 GMT, cher  wrote:   
   >   
   > >And any fool on usenet knows about the tactic of demanding someone   
   > >"disprove a negative". I personally think it's easy to spot a fraud too.   
   > >They start out by suggesting others should disprove the negative they   
   > >state, and then pat themself on the back for being clever. If you cannot   
   > >point to a True Master, then you actually have nothing to offer beyond   
   > >patting yourself on the back? Because from what you've said... your   
   > >opinions are no better than anyone elses. Something else one learns on   
   > >usenet... absolute statements from annoymous posters are generally not   
   > >worth the pixels to see them.    
   >   
   > Poor Cherie,  you make no sense. If someone makes claims about   
   > what or who they are, and through their actions clearly does not live up   
   > to those claims, then they are obviously a fake. Ranting and raving   
   > about it will not change this.   
      
   Hmmmmm.... well, being condescending won't make your case any stronger   
   than if you just stated what you have to say. To me that's a sign of a   
   fake, actually. So is exaggerating the others position to dimenish the   
   effect you preceive their words might have.    
      
   As to whether or not a person makes a claim or that the person   
   complaining perceives a claim is also relevant. I know for a fact that   
   i've come across people who project unrealistic idealisms onto groups or   
   an individual and believe that this is proof of fakes and frauds. Those   
   people do tend to rant about how blind others are when they don't see   
   things from their perspective.  It takes all kinds to make up a   
   world, doesn't it?    
      
      
   > >LOL...  If you have nothing to offer the group in terms of a True Master   
   > >(you laid the points of comparison here), then what you offer here is of   
   > >little value. That's not frightening, that's a waste of time. Big   
   > >difference where I come from. All I see is a one trick pony! YAWN......   
   >   
   > It is not me who is making claims about what a "True Master" is   
   > or is not, it is the fake master who makes these claims and then   
   > clearly demonstrates through their actions that they are not at all   
   > what *they* claim to be. Distort my words if you wish Cher, but it   
   > accomplishes nothing. Those who contradict their own words   
   > about who they are, are fakes, and it will eventually become obvious   
   > to those who are paying attention, and who have a genuine desire to   
   > see the truth. Sorry, if such an observation makes you so uneasy.   
      
   So then a Zen Koan is proof of a fake? I am not distorting your words   
   here, I'm trying to see if your words actually make sense. They appear   
   to at first glance, but upon further critical scutiny all that you've   
   given us is a broad sweeping generalization. I realize from reading the   
   papers for the last several years how easy it is (i.e. polarized   
   politics) to make statements that first appear to be reasonable but   
   later are seen as being vacuous in substance. See? And I can't think of   
   a single individual on this planet that doesn't change and grow by   
   virture of living and having experiences. So from where I stand, even   
   the wisest of men have condradicted themselves over time. The greatest   
   leaders have made claims they later could not live up to, only to go on   
   and do great things. I can't see this as a rule of thumb that would   
   actually work successfully in this instance. Perhaps this helps clarify   
   my point? I hope so.   
      
   > Have a nice day!   
   > empty room - 975th Living Truth Master   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)