Difference between revisions of "User talk:Carptrash"
Tmtoulouse (talk | contribs) |
(→CAMwiki: I hope this works...) |
||
Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
:Anyway, I'm the Dixon NM person and there is a perspective on me there that is an objective, or subjective from a more-or-less stranger's POV. Here I am the token, almost tolerated, [[cult]] member, but that's not really much of who I am. [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] 17:38, 22 August 2008 (EDT) | :Anyway, I'm the Dixon NM person and there is a perspective on me there that is an objective, or subjective from a more-or-less stranger's POV. Here I am the token, almost tolerated, [[cult]] member, but that's not really much of who I am. [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] 17:38, 22 August 2008 (EDT) | ||
− | :: | + | ::You're in NM? {{user:tmtoulouse/options}} 17:42, 22 August 2008 (EDT) |
+ | :::I wish you people wouldn't talk in abbreviations. | ||
+ | :::Also, [http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Carptrash&diff=next&oldid=214266 see me after class]. {{User:Chaos!/oldersig}} 17:50, 22 August 2008 (EDT) |
Revision as of 21:50, 22 August 2008
Assuming you are the same as your wikipedia name sake you are most welcome, though you may consider this "enemy territory." The trench warfare though is avoidable. tmtoulouse plague 23:19, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
- Can you quit redlinking endless words in your comments at "liberal beliefs"? Since we aren't an encyclopedia, we aren't ever going to have articles on most of those things. We sorta don't like random pointless redlinks here :( But, er, welcome, whoever you are :) ħuman 00:47, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
- I just showed you how to do it without littering our "wanted pages" with junk. Thank you, please, when in Rome. ħuman 01:00, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
I see you've already been welcomed to the Andrew Schlafly. Greetings Carptrash! Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:07, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
Hey there
How is going I noticed you hanging around. As a general rule don't us Wikipedia (WP) as a reference it is what is called by people who use such phrases as a tertiary reference. Try finding the primary or secondary reference they used, read it, make sure it says what they claim it says and use that as a reference. Otherwise keep up the good work. 01:21, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
Which cult?
<font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!That's why I have this doomed expression. You haven't noticed my doomed expression. 11:14, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
It's all (well. some of it) here, Point # 12. Unless, Tmtoulouse is . . . . . . . . ........ wrong? Carptrash 11:28, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
- I don't see how that's a cult. It's just a vaguely inane spiritual... thing. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!That's why I have this doomed expression. You haven't noticed my doomed expression. 11:38, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
- Well I suspect that I'll meander over to the cult article and re-write it so that it covers me. Or just come to grips with the reality (or, unreality) that I just might not be cut out for culthood. Life is filled with these tough choices. I wonder what Esther Hicks would do? Carptrash 12:00, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
- Cults are rarely defined by their ideology at first, but rather their adherents. Watching one or more Esther Hicks adherents respond to what apparently was a specific call by their leader to whitewash her wikipedia article reminded very much of the Moonies. tmtoulouse plague 13:34, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
- Well I suspect that I'll meander over to the cult article and re-write it so that it covers me. Or just come to grips with the reality (or, unreality) that I just might not be cut out for culthood. Life is filled with these tough choices. I wonder what Esther Hicks would do? Carptrash 12:00, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
- If you are suggesting that I was/am responding to a call from My Leader you are very much mistaken. Or, at best, such a call was delivered through Non-Ordinary time, space and channels. But I am still trying to get a sense of what is going on here, what/where it is appropriate to say what/where. I have no desire to flaunt conventions because I do understand how important they are to rationalists. Comparing Esther Hicks followers and their tactics to those of the Moonies seems to me very much like wearing a large sign on your back proclaiming I DON'T KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT, which is okay, but you might as well know that it's there. Carptrash 11:23, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
- Didn't mention anyone by name. But the fact that about 5 editors are now banned at WP for sockpuppetting and abuse POV pushing, and the sock master was sent to wikipedia directly by Hicks is probably what I was talking about. Have you read some of the cult watch forums about the experience of ex-Hicks followers, or family and friends of current Hicks followers? Pretty enlightening. tmtoulouse plague 12:42, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
- I have seen some of it and was not impressed. Mostly it was "my wife's cousin had a friend" or obviously (to me) folks who were willfully or otherwise misinterpreting what Abraham/Hicks says and finding that it did not work out. Time willing, I'll go to any link that you post here and give you my opinion. I have not really been following what has be going on at the wikipedia article since moving over here. However the wiki article (and this one for that matter) does have some glaring falsities - notably the "talk to the dead" stuff. That is pure projection, and now willful ignorance on the part of reporters and editors who seem to be more concerned with "good sources" than accuracy and/or truth. Why insist that she claims to "talk to the dead" when she does not just because some reporter who was not doing his homework got it printed? Carptrash 12:53, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
- Read a little closer, a lot of it was some anguished pleas from spouses of recent converts. They describe how the person they loved has changed to something different. Comments about how they have lost interest in many things, only show emotions when talking about "Abraham", are spending money they don't have to go to expensive seminars, buy dvds, even go on cruises. They talk about how they blame other people for terrible acts of nature. One heart wrenching story was about a Hicks follower who told a grieving widower and father who lost his wife and daughter in a horrible car accident that it was his fault because he manifested that reality by probably "worrying" about it. An ex-follower described some support boards where people advocated promiscuous sex without birth control or condoms because if you just think positive thoughts you don't need birth control or protection. Followers also seem to go nuts when you bring up negative qualities of the Hicks or question the legitimacy of their stage act. I have seen that first hand. The only ingredient missing is for Esther to pass around flavor aide on her next cruise. tmtoulouse plague 12:59, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
- Read what? Please send a link. Also my domestic partner is making some very anguished pleas over my recent conversion to the rationalwiki. Does that make it a cult? if I decide that I can fly by holding and flapping a largish cottonwood branch in each hand and decide to test this hypothesis by leaping off the nearby Rio Grande Gorge Bridge (app. 600 feet, straight down) , does my demise fall at the feet of the scientific method?
Where to argue about eeeeeeek's less-than-perfect ANALOGY
- Many places where I have read about applied Abraham/Hicks it is obvious to me that the folks involved are either willfully or not, doing something other than what Abe/Hicks is advocating. Misapplied A/H is not the same as doing it right, as in about any other area of endeavor. I predict that if I launch into some sort of saga about the advantages A/H has brought me (don't worry, I will NOT do it - this is just for discussion purposes) I would be informed in very clear language that anecdotal accounts do NOT count. However when anecdotal stuff supports the ratiohalwiki ideology - it's just fine. Or am I mistaken? Carptrash 13:52, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
- If one can get away with saying "those for whom it doesn't work are just doing it wrong", there is no there, there. I had good experiences in the past with chiropractic (a good chiropractor, who, although a complete woomeister, didn't push the woo), so what do I do about our article on chiropractic? Read it, apply what it says and the way it says it to my experience, think about it... realize my experience is not a scientific study, and that most of the healing involved time plus ibuprofen plus using better mechanics when lifting (etc.). ħuman 15:58, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
You wrote:
- "If one can get away with saying "those for whom it doesn't work are just doing it wrong", there is no there, there."
and that is certainly one perspective. However I'd like to present a purely mechanical analogy to be considered.
1. Cars are a great way to get around.
2. Bulls**t. Ours won't go at all. My husband spent all our $$$$$ on a car and it just sits in the garage.
3. You need to put gas in it. You are doing it wrong.
If Galileo had trudged to the top of the Leaning Tower and given the small canon ball (or whatever) a slight push as he dropped them, then it would have arrived at landing before the large one. These things do have to be done right. Don't you think?
The folks that I have read about for whom A/H is not working seem to be not doing it right, however I am still hoping to get links to some real examples of folks for whom A/H has failed so that I can take a look at them and respond to some "real" situations.
It is also interesting to me that I have been cast/drawn into being the A/H Cult representative since I have not actively thought about A/H in months - the exception being when I observe some of its principles in action and muse on it for a bit. At best it involves about .666 of my conscious awareness.
- The car analogy is easy to test, we can have a car with no gas and see if it runs, then put gas in it see if it runs, then take gas out and see if it runs, we can do that as many times as we like and get data that can help us with our prediction that the gas helps it/is needed to run. Now, how might we do the same thing with the Law of Attraction? tmtoulouse plague 11:44, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
- well, yes, it can be tested, but more to my point here is that long before anyone figures out how to make the car run the folks who were so disappointed and then angry, have posted horror stories on 43 different web site, LOUDLY proclaiming the cars don't work, that this one has ruined their lives, that car ownership is a cult, that they are a HUGE waste of $$$$$ (especially if they just got a Hummer) etc. etc. etc. Prove what you will/can, those stories are out there for anyone to use when their agenda demands/requires it. Carptrash 12:04, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
- You are getting the order mixed up, before we can start figuring out if someone is doing something wrong because they can't make "x" do "y" it must first be demonstrated that "x" can do "y." So how shall we test it? tmtoulouse plague 12:06, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
Xs and Ys can come later. What I am talking about is how misinformation gets posted on websites and is then used to prove that some particular process does not work. I am trying to explain/deal with earlier allegations that A/H produced a process that does not work and that there is "proof" (?) out on the web at various places. Which I have not been directed to as of yet.. Let's deal with this first? Then do the science thing? Which I suspect will be more difficult. Carptrash 12:34, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
- Meh, unimpressed, dealing with people "out there" is absolutely reliant on testing of the idea. If the idea is tested and shown to have merit then a discussion about them "doing it wrong" becomes important. If testing shows it does not have merit then there is no "right way" to do it. So how do we test it? tmtoulouse plague 12:40, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
- By the way, "how to run cars" is public knowledge. There are books written on it from every level of society. Scholars say "science works this way in the combustion engine", mechanics say "gas has these effects, but oil is also important", artists write about years and years of mischif using cheep gas, and on and on. and no one has to pay for the SECRET knowledge of cars. Cults on the other hand have no evidence; universities and highschools do not teach the basics of cult-repair like they teach the basics of car maintenance; there are not shops by competing people who work within the capitlaist system to say "joey isn't as good a mechanic as I am, and my gas is better"... and on and on. In other words, the "what you need to do" to get your "success" in cults is vague, cold-read laden language, full of so many pitfalls and loopholes that you can easily "explain" away why the person didn't get what he 'asked for." And for all of this, THEY CHARGE YOU. knowledge is free - when it's *not* free, you should stop and ask what is being blown up your neither regions...--Waiting for Godot 13:21, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
Sigh. I was trying to find an analogy (and they are rarely if ever perfect) to what some of you are finding - reading - and believing about A/H on the internet. If my analogy, which is not really intended to be looked at that closely, since it was intended for a very specific purpose just becomes a tangent to the real discussion . . . what's the point? . Everything G says about the public nature of cars might be true, but it still might not be enough to stop someone who had problems with one, no matter how irrational they might be from posting absurd crap in the www. We could go back and forth for years without really getting to where I hope we all want to be. Looking at A/H through the cold, clear eyes of science. Example, "There are books written on it from every level of society." There are several levels of society that are illiterate. No books have been written either at or for that level. Therefore your entire premise is wrong. . . . ... well I could argue more about my analogy, but am currently inclined to let the whole thing go.
- Still waiting for how I can test this idea. Your whole analogy and premise assumes validity of the concept. I reject that your assumption is valid. So how do we figure out if it is valid or not? 24.36.227.74 14:33, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
Okay User 74. "test this idea" Which idea? "reject that your assumption" What assumption? Carptrash 14:39, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
- Hicks' pushes the Law of Attraction as the basis for her shtick, this whole conversation becomes meaningless if the Law of Attraction is total nonsense. In that case people can not be "doing it wrong" because there is not "right way" to do it. So how do we test the Law of Attraction to determine its validity. tmtoulouse plague 14:41, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
CAMwiki
I don't know how much up your alley this stuff is, but you might want to join and help out the good folks here:
http://www.wiki4cam.org/wiki/Main_Page
(CAM = complementary and alternative medicine). ħuman 15:56, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
- Well I am much more a consumer of this stuff than I am a praticitioner of it. My partner could probably be a serious contributer, but . . ... that's not my call. I shall pass it on. I'm an art historian with a background in various other fields. i know wikipedia is considered to be a so-so event around here, but this is about wikipedia NOT by it.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/wiki.html?pg=1
- Anyway, I'm the Dixon NM person and there is a perspective on me there that is an objective, or subjective from a more-or-less stranger's POV. Here I am the token, almost tolerated, cult member, but that's not really much of who I am. Carptrash 17:38, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
- You're in NM? tmtoulouse plague 17:42, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
- I wish you people wouldn't talk in abbreviations.
- Also, see me after class. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!That's why I have this doomed expression. You haven't noticed my doomed expression. 17:50, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
- You're in NM? tmtoulouse plague 17:42, 22 August 2008 (EDT)