--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "ideaofgod"
<gwsmith@s...> wrote:

--- In

Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "starchild1124"

<starchild1124@y...> wrote:

Like... comparing heaven to sex. "...very peak of a perfect sex
organism... never stops... keeps going on forever with no

decrease...

powerful flawless intensity."

It's the sort of analogy someone with no real experience in such
matters might come up with. No worse than comparing Heaven to a

coke

rush, but both miss the real point, which is that Heaven is not an
expression of the ego's ideas at all. The Ur tells us sex, as such,
is not actually pleasureable at all.

A coke rush... and you know this how...? (LOL)

Would anyone be happy, or even survive, in a continual coke rush?

Would a continual orgasm remain exciting and pleasureable over any
amount of time?

We can either write to each other here (you, me and Stephen, the
outcasts- "you folks from the ng" or we can continue this back
ON "our" ng and leave these poor people in peace (and boredom).

All we're doing is creating more interest in the book and more
people are buying it to see what it's all about.

I haven't gotten past the first few pages, never got my orgamism
question answered, and never found out why Karen had to go to work to
support Gary, who sat home and meditated, and had this whole other
part of his life for 9 years he never shared with her.

Sounds like a t.v. movie of the week.

I thought my questions were pretty serious and legit, but I guess
Gary couldn't be bothered by them.

Great way to treat a possible future fan.

Or, as Jesus put it "the least of my bretheren".

Maybe now he's sold all those 120 or so copies to Endeaver Academy
the rest of his public doesn't matter anymore.

His loss...

~ Carrie

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., Gene Bogart
<gene@g...> wrote:

Let me state here for the record, that I am not the "Gene" to whom

Gary was

referring in his recent post.

I am rarely repetitious -- although I am, occasionally, tendentious.

Gene B.

(the "other" Gene)

You are the Gene who emailed me asking where you could read
the "newsgroup from hell" you were hearing so much about here.

Actually, this board is a lot smaller and they use nicer words, but
there's not too much difference.

~ Carrie

From: "garyrrenard" <garyrrenard@y...>
Subject: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] I now read all the posts

except...

Although I am no longer reading the repetitious posts from Gene,
Stephen or Carrie, who apparently have a lot more time on their

hands

than I do, I will continue, as always, to answer questions about the
book by those who are genuinely interested. Of course your other
comments are also welcome, whether they require an answer or not. I
also encourage you to communicate with eachother when you feel so
guided. Love and peace, Gary.

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "garyrrenard"
<garyrrenard@y...> wrote:

Although I am no longer reading the repetitious posts from Gene,
Stephen or Carrie, who apparently have a lot more time on their

hands

than I do, I will continue, as always, to answer questions about

the

book by those who are genuinely interested. Of course your other
comments are also welcome, whether they require an answer or not. I
also encourage you to communicate with eachother when you feel so
guided. Love and peace, Gary.

I have a question, I don't know if you will consider it serious or
not.

If you aren't reading posts by Gene, Stephen and me, how will you
know if we ask any serious questions about the book?

Oh, maybe you meant any questions we might ask- comments we might
make wouldn't be serious/worth of your time, and you have already
decided his (overall) and will just skip our posts?

Let's see, adding to that Martha (who seems a lot different than
she was on other boards we've been on together, maybe she is at least
being honest about how she feels about me and not pretending?) who
has asked me to "shut up" and Patrick who sends me personal emails
with his responses, that really doesn't leave all that many people
here, does it?

I could ask you another question, that you won't read and respond
to, which is WHY DID YOU EMAIL ME AND OFFER TO GIVE ME A COPY OF THE
BOOK? So I could read it and discuss it here?

And now I'm reading it and I'm here, you are making out like I'm
invading your board with mindless questions and comments (about my
version of ACIM and what I believe it says).

I guess I wasn't supposed to bring up and question any of the
lies and deceit that seems to have gone on around the book, even if
it might "clear the air".

It hasn't been a total loss. I got one more lesson in "shutting
up" (thanks Martha) and have actually come to see Gene and Stephen in
a much better way than I had on the newsgroup.

Like they really are my Brothers in Christ.

Don't worry about having to ignore my questions and comments about
the book(and rambling on about the course) I really don't have to
bother you (and Martha) anymore.

And I don't really have all that much free time. It's now almost
midnight and I could be sleeping.

And I really did want to know why you got to sit around all day and
meditate and Karen had to go to work in Lewiston. And you kept all
that went on (which seems to have been a big part of your life) from
her for 9 years!

Maybe THAT would have been a better, more believable story.

And, of course, who is Nelson, why isn't he listed as a
member/owner/moderatore? And how does one look him up on Yahoo and
see his picture (which could be anyone's) if his yahoo name isn't
listed here.

Thanks for the book and the invite to the group.

I won't make out you deciding to ignore me and have deemed my
questions and comments as "unworthy" is the same as throwing me out
of the group.

If that's how you (and Martha) want it, you got it.

~ Carrie

开云体育

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "Stephen"
<cracker.jack@n...> wrote:

From: mstreet
To: Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] Re: Actually, Gene's

being nice so far...

>>Very good post, Carrie. And for everyone who's reading this,

Carrie is a

Blue Book student - just like you guys.<<

Hi Stephen:

I think you better check this out with Carrie. She was claiming

last week, that Helen got the Blue wrong. And of course, implying
that she knew better.

~ Martha
I know what Carrie said about the Blue Book, Martha, but to my

knowledge she's not an Urtext or JCIM student.

Personally, I think she probably found that thing about 'doing a

foolish thing' to be wrong in ACIM because it was in her last
horoscope - but that's another story. And for God's sake don't ask
her what shape the Earth is.

(Only kidding, Carrie!)

~
Stephen

I didn't realize the "asking a foolish thing" topic would be such a
big deal, but it came in handy for Martha here.

When I first got the book I wrote to Ken Wapnick (not knowing
anyone else to ask) and one question was about that "brother
insisting you do a foolish thing" passage.

Ken wrote back saying something like it didn't really mean you have
to DO IT, but to think about why you object to doing it, if you don't
want to. I suppose in the event of an ego war between two people. One
asking you to do something you felt was foolish, and you strongly
resisting doing it.

He also pointed out the page where "Jesus apparently corrected it".

I thought it seemed out of place there, and guessed that maybe
Helen, after reading the first part (she had written down)
thought "oh no, people will be killing someone because a brother
strongly insisteed they do it" and stuck in that "correction"
about "I have told you if a brother insists you do a foolish thing to
do it, but don't do it if it would harm someone".

This didn't even seem to fit in the chapter it was in the middle of.

Oh I do have the blue book (1st and 2nd version) and have since 1990.

I also have the Urtext and HLC versions.

And a lot of tapes, like Marianne Williamson, Ken Wapnicks (from
long ago, listening to him for very long, I would feel hopeless and
depressed (LOL) and many others.

For the past few years I haven't been paying much attention to the
actual words. I think I've been in more a "jump in and try and live
it and see what I get reflected back" mode.

Around the time I found the internet.

It has been VERY educational and I've said many times I'm grateful
for all the lessons.

Some people probably think I'm being sarcastic, but it's not
intended that way.

Other than that, I'm a Sagittarius.

I like to think that explains a lot.

~ Carrie

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "Stephen"
<cracker.jack@n...> wrote:

From: "ideaofgod" <gwsmith@s...>

posts to me, "When the copyright's over..") they hate Ken

Wapnick

and

they hate me because they think my book supports Ken, plus I

received

permission from him to use all those quotes from the Course in

my

book, so I must be conspiring to get the "official" published

version

of ACIM to the world! (Shame on me.)

I don't hate Ken, with whom I am actually on friendly terms. Nor

am I

legally challenging the copyright on the Course--the case concerns
the Hugh Lynn Cayce version of the Text.

I suggest that sticking to facts would be good for what ails you.

I'm glad you mentioned this Gene - you've made me realise that Gary

made

another mistake I should have commented upon. I am not involved in

any of

the current litigations, etc., that Ken has launched against people

for

whatever reason and never have been. (That said, if I ever win the

lottery

I'd be more than happy to contribute!)

~
Stephen

I don't think it matters what you said, did't say and are for.
Same with GeneWS.

As Patrick just pointed out, getting controversy stirred up and
publicity (of sorts, like on this board and the ng where a LOT of
people read, even if they don't actively participate) is good for the
sale of the book.

If you get people's attention then then want to read it, just to
see what all the fuss is about.

It's probably done all the time, and on a bigger scale with the
bigger publishers and books.

They probably don't care what anyone says about the book, the
author, the author's wife, the facts in the book or the publisher.

As long as people say something, and others get interested in
finding out what it's all about.

In a way, those of us who have strong opinions and are open and
outspoken about them, are their best salespeople.

And we don't even get a percentage of the profits (LOL)

~ Carrie

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "starchild1124"
<starchild1124@y...> wrote:

I was there and it seemed more like they didn't like how you got
into defense/attack (over their questions and pointing out what

they

felt were inconsistencies (facts) in the book- and how it backed up
what they felt was Ken Wapnick's version of ACIM (their opinion)

I've not concerned myself with the Wapnick aspect, beyond remarking
that the albatross is around Ken's neck.

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "starchild1124"
<starchild1124@y...> wrote:

Gene, didn't you say once you are also a Sagittarius, like I am?

Nov. 28.

I don't know if I was asked, directly, but they offered me (and
sent me) a copy of the book.

Val sent me my copy.

So far it seems to be very well written.

It's badly written.

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "starchild1124"
<starchild1124@y...> wrote:

Like... comparing heaven to sex. "...very peak of a perfect sex
organism... never stops... keeps going on forever with no

decrease...

powerful flawless intensity."

It's the sort of analogy someone with no real experience in such
matters might come up with. No worse than comparing Heaven to a coke
rush, but both miss the real point, which is that Heaven is not an
expression of the ego's ideas at all. The Ur tells us sex, as such,
is not actually pleasureable at all.

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., LindaL
<lklanglois@y...> wrote:

You said that if I didn't want to hear the what the Course really

had to say, I would not reach Atonement...

No, I said not wishing to do this was a defense against the
Atonement, but I also said this defense will not work. Hence, I said
almost the opposite of what you attribute to me above.

and since it seems that it is your belief that the only way I can see
all of the truth is to read the UrText, I assumed.

You assume far too much and much too often. You seem to get nearly
everything you read of what I write wrong to some extent; I hope you
do better when reading the Course.

I know I don't have this verbatim, but this is the impression left

with me anyhow.

Impressions are for wax. Careful thought works better here.

Let me state here for the record, that I am not the "Gene" to whom Gary was referring in his recent post.

I am rarely repetitious -- although I am, occasionally, tendentious.

Gene B.

(the "other" Gene)

Although I am no longer reading the repetitious posts from Gene,
Stephen or Carrie, who apparently have a lot more time on their hands
than I do, I will continue, as always, to answer questions about the
book by those who are genuinely interested. Of course your other
comments are also welcome, whether they require an answer or not. I
also encourage you to communicate with eachother when you feel so
guided. Love and peace, Gary.

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "mstreet"
<mastreet@t...> wrote:

Carrie wrote:

I've also thrown out ACIM topics and questions for possible

discussion on the ng and they mainly get ignored.<<

Hello Carrie:

I notice you have a few Course themes that you basically go over

and over to prove some kind of point. Like "if a brother asks you to
do something foolish, do it because it doesn't matter." Now I have
also heard people flat out telling you to "shut up." So would this
not be seen by you, as being a foolish request? Or are you, somehow
exempt from these foolish requests of others? And only think that
others should abide by them?

~ Martha

Of course, you are right. You are always just as right as I am.

If you can't resist the temptation to read what I write (which
would be a choice you could make to shut me up) then I'll stop
writing to you.

That should do it,huh?

And I am grateful to everyone who tells me to shut up.

Maybe at some point I'll start to remember it.

One of my life lessons.

~ Carrie

开云体育

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "garyrrenard"
<garyrrenard@y...> wrote:

Carrie wrote:

If it's such a great book, why can't it just stand on it's own,

and

who cares if a few people criticize it?

Hi Carrie. It wasn't criticism of the book that was answered by us

at

the ng, it was the deliberate misrepresentation of what the book

said

as presented by Gene, who began attacking it before he ever read

it -

and then resorted to presenting it out of context after that. As

far

as the book standing on its own - it is. Very few people read these
boards compared to the book. Incidentally, I never felt angry at

the

ng, nor do I now.

Don't mind me, I'm used to "the newsgroup from hell" where

everyone

is free to speak their mind and say how they honestly think and

feel.

Are you saying that you haven't been free to speak your mind and

say

how you honestly think and feel here? Would you prefer that the

board

be moderated, (?) because you certainly don't seem to acknowledge

the

freedom that has been evident here. As far as the founder Nels is
concerned, I think there's a picture of him in his Yahoo Profile,
plus you can e-mail him. Of course if you want to think that's a

hoax

also, then you're welcome. Love and peace, Gary.

I still think it was Gene's personal opinion about the book (and
the "facts" he felt were wrong, in it) and nothing that had to be
anymore than that.

Of course I feel free to speak openly here, isn't that what I'm
doing?

I am aware of it being read and discussed and picked about by those
with the "private-behind the back" boards, and in personal emails and
messages, by those who don't or not longer openly participate here.

But that's their karma (if it feels okay for them to do it).

As to Nels and his yahoo profile, what name would that be under?

I just looked over the member list and didn't see anyone with a
star next to their name, as owner/moderator.

doesn't mean it's not there, butlooking over it twice I didn't
happen to see it.

And having a yahoo id and picture on it is meaningless as an ID

On the ng, Katie posts under the name "Noggin" and the aol email
address listed with that has a profile with it, showing a young man
with no (or shaved) hair.

which means that either Katie is a bald young man, posting as a
woman, or a woman, with an id and picture of a bald young man.

Looks almost exactly like the actor who plays the young Lex Luther
in the Fox series SMALLVILLE.

~ Carrie

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "garyrrenard"
<garyrrenard@y...> wrote:

Stephen wrote:

Who exactly are you to assume you can make this staggeringly

judgemental
claim?

Just someone who's been watching you people in action for the last
six months.

"You people".... You mean your Brothers in Christ who are one with
you?

What happened to the lesson that says "my sinless brother is my
guide to peace, my sinful brother is my guide to pain and which I
CHOOSE to see I will behold.?"

"If he speaks not of Christ to you, you spoke not of Christ to him".

You have decide what "you people in action" are like.

If you want to see it differently, isn't it your mind that has to
change?

I know people who write books based on ACIM don't have to be a
perfect example of what it teaches, but seems like they could at
least try.

I haven't yet gotten to anything the visitors might say about "you
people" on computer screens (LOL)

Actually, if I didn't know what ACIM said and know it's my personal
perception, I'd say this egroup isn't much different than the
newsgroup. Just that the a little bit nicer words are used.

It's the content, not words (form)that teaches.

Oh, btw, I don't know about any bets about Gene getting banned from
here, or any made about me.

You wanted me to read the book and apparently wanted me in the group.

Maybe it was getting a little draggy (LOL)

~ Carrie

Wouldn't Gary be somewhat prepared for the idea that a few people
might not believe this story and think he made it all up, or used it
to bring his own ideas out into the world?

Which I think might be what James Redfield did with THE CELESTINE
PROPHECIES?

Using the story as the base for the ideas.

I haven't read in the book yet about why he kept all this from his
wife for 9 years, and how she felt when she finally found out about
it, but that, in itself seems kind of odd.

~ Carrie




--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "Stephen"
<cracker.jack@n...> wrote:

From: "garyrrenard" <garyrrenard@y...>
To: <Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 3:27 PM
Subject: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] Re: Wishing you a mind at

peace

Hi Ossie. That other Gene and Stephen are regular posters at

another

message board called trcm on Google, which has been referred to by
some (not me) as "The Newsgroup From Hell." (I think they're

proud of

that name.)

Gene and myself most certainly do not belong to the camp that

delights in

TRCM being "The Newsgroup From Hell".

Gene actually has kind of a bet going there about how
long it will take him to get kicked out of the yahoo Disappearance
club. I guess when he posted that over there he didn't realize we
have no rules. In any case, these guys are legally opposing the
copyright of the Course, (notice that Stephen said in one of his
posts to me, "When the copyright's over..") they hate Ken Wapnick

and

they hate me because they think my book supports Ken,

Who exactly are you to assume you can make this staggeringly

judgemental

claim? A disagreement over the copyright policy is hardly the same

as

hatred. Similarly, a belief that you simply made up Arten and

Pursah is not

hatred either. This is a foolish and irresponsible statement to

make, Gary,

and it goes back to something I said yesterday about people having

an

internal problem with people who disagree with them. You've got a

big one.

Get over it. I think the copyright policy as it is now is

extremely wrong

for various reasons - and that's it. The fact that you are the

kind of

person who would label someone as 'hateful' so easily just because

they

question the party-line does not show you to be very right minded

at all.

plus I received
permission from him to use all those quotes from the Course in my
book, so I must be conspiring to get the "official" published

version

of ACIM to the world! (Shame on me.)

I do not believe there is any 'conspiracy', and you might find it a

useful

practice to adopt to find out what people really believe rather

than giving

into the temptation of projecting onto them what is most satisfying

and

tempting to the ego to believe.

I would be very happy with a situation in which FACIM/Ken simply

decided

that the copyright policy on ACIM (all versions) was the same as

that

applied to, say, the NIV Bible which is very ammicable. FACIM's

preference

for works that either flatter Ken or at least adhere to his

metaphysics even

if they don't totally agree with every theological point he makes

is plainly

wrong.

To say they have alterior
motives and axes to grind would be an understatement! They'd like

to

ruin the Yahoo club. (The ego works in mysterious ways.)

Not true.

~
Stephen

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "acimgirl"
<acimgirl@e...> wrote:

Hi Ossie.... After many years and many fights, the warrior in me

is

very tired. I know that a change is in the works because after
reading your post I went back to see what was going on and I

realized

that I had skipped over most of the posts by the ones who are

calling

for love.

The ones who are calling for love.

Maybe in your seeing them as this, it's YOU who is calling for it?

Maybe if you give it, you will receive it back?

~ Carrie

I wasn't online when Marianne participated in her discussion boards,
but I used to read what others said about her doing it. And some
would tell me (I'd ask)

I never heard anything bad about this. She had no problems writing
and answering questions on her board, and even kept the "messages
from Marianne" board (nobody else could write on) going for a long
time, till her life took off and she got way too busy to participate
personally.

Everyone loved her on that board.

I did hear, a year after she closed the boards that people from
Endeaver Academy had been showing up at her talks and heckling her,
and then joking about it on the ACIM topic board (which they pretty
much took over. It wasn't much of a discussion, whatever you said to
them they'd reply ... "there is no world!" or "I love you" (LOL)

I didn't pay much attention to that topic, and "Healing of America"
(I thought it should be "Healing of our Mind" or at least "Healing
the Universe")

But, I'm sure if Marianne had had the time and inclination (or
guidance) to stay personally participating on her boards, she
wouldn't have gotten defensive and angry if someone asked her
questions or had less than positive opinions of her books.

I have seen her (years ago) handle people who stood up and yelled
at her from the audience of a live t.v. talk show, from an egoless
point of view.

Defusing the situation and everyone feeling better because of it.and
not having to be right by making the person wrong.

At the time I was on her boards (and she wasn't) Carolyn Myss had a
discussion board, that was stictly moderated/registered and people
were only allowed something like 5 posts a day on it.

I never even looked at it.

~ Carrie






--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "sa_grippe"
<sa_grippe@y...> wrote:

...at least to me, anyway. He's only accused me of having "low
standards," whereas on the newgroup from hell he called me just

about

every name in the book, all for the apparent sin of publishing

Gary's

manuscript. In response, I have consistently called Gene a "fine
fellow." This is because the Course teaches me that we either

project

our fears or extend our love -- and that when we project fear, we

are

taking what we believe about ourselves and trying to blame it on a
brother. Jung wrote about this as well; he once suggested that the
most important political act any individual could undertake was to
withdraw his projections from the world.

So whenever Gene tries to attack me, Gary, Ken Wapnick, or the

fence

post, I can tell that he's having a pretty terrific struggle with
what the psychologists call "self-esteem." I call him a fine

fellow --

and I suggest that you all do, too, in your own words -- because I
think that's the real truth of the matter and because he can
obviously use some strokes.

But Gary and I should probably apologize for always bringing such
fine fellows in our wake; we're the ones who came out with this

book

and have subsequently joined public discussion groups like we have
nothing to hide. Do something noticeable like that, and you'll

always

get a few fine fellows on your case sooner or later. Marianne used

to

participate in her own groups a little, but I can't rememember the
head of HarperCollins, her first publisher, coming out to back her

up

(LOL)!

As far as the copyright of the Course goes, I've personally decided
to leave that in the hands of Judge Robert Sweet in New York, who
actually has the power and responsibility to decide. Whichever way

he

goes, the case will probably be appealed, and go on for at least a
couple more years, giving everyone plenty more opportunities to
project their fears about it -- if that's what they want. A while
back, I decided that I had more interesting things to do.

Cheers,
D. Patrick Miller
Fearless Books