From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: Xavier's defense of Mr Cern
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 06:50:12 GMT

s0xjg@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:
>I have just read a great deal of the bile directed at our friend Dave Casper.
>
>When he told us about his parents it was in response to my posting on his
>chart and in doing so Dave trusted us to treat the revealed information
>gentley and carefully.  Instead it was used to spit insults and venom, it
>was used as the basis of amatuer psychoanalysis and worst of all to imply
>any number of projective disorders.

Hmm. I know there is a lot of projection in what *I* write; also that I am a
kind of 'universal theme machine' and so I'm mapped onto my subject. So not
as much projection as it seems . . . Disorders hurt. It's bad to focus on them
exclusively, but fix them and you're home free. Weren't you the one talking
about "tell it like it is?" - I might be wrong in what I say, but I'm trying
to tell it like I see it.

Insults and venom. True - Mea Culpa. So do you here:

>What a bunch of shits those who joined in the attack are.

So, I feel, has Dave - not so much "you're an asshole", but "you must be
stupid" sorts of things. So do a lot of people who let their emotions go,
and respond to attacks real and imagined.

>.........................................................  It was in *good
>faith* that Dave shared it with us and it should have been treated with kid
>gloves.
>
>How dare you bring his mother in to this?

His mother had an influence on his life. I might be wrong, but I'm siding with
Dave *against* his mother - how hateful that someone who is supposed to love
you would leave you with deep emotional scars. Hey - if any of this about his
mother is on the mark, then I *hope* he picks up the anger that I have at such
people and puts it in his service to free himself from her negative influence
on him.

Sorry, Xavier - I live in a fantasy world where everyone would be comfortable
doing deep encounter work. I take it for granted that I like people and want
to help. Blowing up the chart into archetypal monsters helps to explain it.
I learn by running into things (ouch!) and so when I hurt someone's feelings,
they either have to show it, or tell me. Failing that, how am I to know?
And the "I'm supposed to guess" theory is down the tubes - if I did that,
I'd have to stay at home. I will forever be offending someone somewhere -
and staying at home offends me.

>Those who joined in the attack and who used this information should be ashamed
>of themselves.  What childish, stupid, thoughtless, petty, viscous behaviour.
>I do not know about the astrological aptitude of those who posted in the
> battle and used this information but I do know that they rank on the level
> of worms when it comes to thoughtfullness.

I would rather be an accurate, thoughtless astrologer than a useless nice one.
I throw a LOT of fire at Dave, which sort of says, how hot do I make it here
for you before you begin to respond to me on equal terms? If I remark, attacks
are not nice and he ignores that - well, then maybe if he were on the
receiving end it might make more sense by example. When he walks home hurt or
angry, somewhere he starts to wonder if it's worth it. I'll be honest with you.
I'm a scoundrel as follows: I am very good with words, and I somehow seem to
have a knack - not polished, but there nonetheless - to "write into" the other
person's subconscious mind. If my model of the other person is wrong, my
writing falls flat and I come off looking bad or stupid. But when my model is
right, I can produce profound changes in the other person. This is a form of
power, and I want to be sure to use it for good, not evil. Injuring someone
for the sake of injuring them is not good. Injuring someone to mirror to them,
if that's the only way of getting their attention, is not good either, but
there I have to make a choice - will the ends justify the means? Maybe one
good jab is all it takes.

>And finaly, for those of you who continue to show a complete lack of
> imagination ,ie those who keep asking "Why does he read this if he does not
>believe in it",  I present an answer.
>
>Because he would like to.

Then let him READ, Xavier. He is also WRITING. How many dozens of others READ
here without posting? You haven't a clue, I'll bet. My complaint about Dave's
attitude is that it is confrontational, not exploratory. He isn't asking, so
much as telling. I have the image of a little boy going up to a craftsman at
a workbench. What are you doing? He asks. Why do you do it that way? But what
do we do in the case where the boy says, I wouldn't do that; what you're
doing is silly; I wouldn't do it that way; etc. See my point? It's not Content,
it's Style.

>I may be wrong about that, I may be right about that, but he has the right to
>post here and I for one welcome it.

Well, I'd suggest putting the arguments into a consistently named thread where
people with killfile capabilities can skip it. If he wants to duke it out,
let's put that into a specific place. When he comes into other threads, it'd
be nice if it were contributory or positive.

Thanks for coming to his defense.