it seems to me that it is you that is seeing people as being or not being
examples of acim. i do not recall anyone you have used this approach with
actually claiming to be an example of acim. i do not see how you can claim
to be disappointed with people, lee for example, and say that you are not
judging them. how does one reach a state of being disappointed without
judgment that there is something to be disappointed about? i would be very
interested to see if you can point out something that lee has said to or
about katie that is not in fact true.

why say this is where you should rise above your expectations if you are not
going to do just that? i do not understand why you feel it is ok to point
out other people's errors and faults, then object when the same thing is
done with you. i also do not see why anyone should be grateful to katie or
to anyone for poking at what they perceive as "their issues and touchy
spots." i can think of many reasons to respond to people that do not involve
what you refer to as issues and touchy spots. when someone regularly posts
inflamatory statements and oughtright lies about people, those people have
every right to respond to them and set the record straight.

a "teacher" who is not invited to teach is not a teacher, but a nuisance.
:)

--

http://www.myspace.com/mrbill069
http://blog.myspace.com/mrbill069

Elizabeth Nicole
Always and Forever
Our Baby Girl

"Lotus_Bloom" tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:17e6e382-10ac-4207-a82f-1de2cf43a822@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 8, 7:55 am, "Pieter" wrote:

you would do well to spend more time on research and less on making claims.
what you claim here is simply untrue. lee has, on many occasions, made it
clear that he is distinguishing the katie who posts here from another katie
dean who is an online writer. lee has even asked katie if she is the katie
dean who is the online writer, and to my knowledge she has never answered
him.

consider reading what you posted here and realizing that it is all your
perception that is colored by your feelings about lee and others here,
filled throughout with your grievances. by your own reasoning, you should be
thankful to those who are allowing you to see your issues and touchy spots.
:)

--

http://www.myspace.com/mrbill069
http://blog.myspace.com/mrbill069

Elizabeth Nicole
Always and Forever
Our Baby Girl

"Carrie" kingcon.com> wrote in message
news:fm06s1$p2k$2@aioe.org...

On Jan 8, 7:48 pm, ellen msn.com> wrote:

Really? What good is not making some errors real, while making other
errors real, then claiming not to make error real?

Rampant level confusion.

If the goddamn world doesn't exist, don't talk as though it does exist
when it suits you, and like it doesn't exist when that suits your
purpose. And certainly DON"T talk as though the world exists and
doesn't exist in the same freakn sentence.

Rampant level confusion.

If the goddamn word doesn't exist. Period --then why the hell are you
here talking about a non-existent world, on a non-existent newsgroup
using non-existent a computer with a non-existent body?

Oh, hold on! We only SEEM to be in a very real, but illusionary
world.

Yeah?? Well haven't you just argued levels --an apparently real but
illusionary world, and a not so apparently real but not illusionary
world?

On Jan 8, 3:40 pm, "Pieter" wrote:

Really? Then how are you not asserting a frame of reference?

You just shifted the frame of reference you established in the
previous sentence.

According to this new frame of reference --your previous statement is
false.

Hence, there is no ego world and no attack in a non-existent ego
world.

Carrie wrote:

By "more", Carrie, what -exactly- do you mean?

After all, if "you only see what you choose to
see", & "how you see it is how it is for you",
then any lack in Lee is simply what you choose
to see, (according to your pontifications), so
what -exactly- would you expect from him? This
little mantra of yours comes back to haunt you
again & again, Carrie. Either you believe what
you keep repeating, in which case expectations
on your part should be nil, or you don't truly
believe your admonitions, in which case you're
a hypocrite. You can't have it both ways here.

Ah the old qualifier: "I'm not saying what I'm
saying, so, don't hold me accountable for it."

On Jan 8, 6:32 pm, "Carrie" kingcon.com> wrote:

ROFLMAO! You have more excuses, justifications and rationalizations
than you do moldy powder lodged in your wrinkles, Queenie.

Are you are protecting "Katie Dean the online author" by posting all
those articles in response to my posts?

You have clearly stated your intention to harass my husband:

" One way to do so is to
use Katie's married name. Her husband has every right to
know that Katie is endangering his assets with her obsessive
online stalking games. Presumably he knows, by now, to
monitor her shenanigans by doing an occasional Vollmer
search. "

On Jan 8, 8:31 pm, Reality Scan gmail.com> wrote:

Your post deserves a serious answer;
due to want of time I have to
postpone my response.