09-20-2011, 12:03 AM
Hey, don't give up! Quote what you wrote and let's give it another 'go', okay? I'll be the first to admit that this thing with the SR forum has been my main impetus lately. I share the posts I create over here because they directly address the stance of the Castaneda skeptics. I feel I am narrowing this matter down to a very hot point that Jeremy Donovan will not be able to talk his way out of. That's fun for me.
MY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE SR FORUM:
_______________________________________
TO AQUAMAN:
Good
points you have made. Who is to say what exactly is truly authentic
about ANY wild claims in supposedly non-fiction books like the Bible,
the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita or the works of Carlos Castaneda. The wise
use what is useful. The unwise blow themselves up in defense of their
supposedly 'infallible and inerrant' books.
______________________________________
COMMENT ON ENERGY LOVER'S POST BELOW ME:
ENERGYLOVER WROTE:
"He lied saca, he got a PhD, big deal? "
MY COMMENT:
Then he went to the store, bought a frozen burrito and some milk, and paper towels and big deal, right?
People
like energylover and Jeremy Donovan would have us all believe that what
Castaneda accomplished, if he faked it, was easy and anyone could do
it. REALITY tells a different story. Reality says that if Castaneda
faked the whole thing, created New York Times bestsellers, made the
cover of Time Magazine and tricked UCLA into giving him a Ph. D that
would make Carlos Castaneda one of the greatest modern geniuses of the
UCLA anthropology age! I say those who feel I am incorrect about this
are indeed insane, but...I could be wrong. Prove me wrong, folks. Do the
same things yourselves so that we can all know just how easy it was to
accomplish! I don't remember DeMille's critical book about Castaneda on
the New York Times bestseller's list, do you?
NOTE: Of course,
none of you care how tempted I was to openly insult energylover. Of
course you don't care how much effort it takes for me to restrain
myself, right? Of course you don't care!
______________________________________
COMMENT ON THE QUALITIES OF LOSERS:
You
can easily spot losers because they tend to harp on the perceived bad
while doing their best to ignore the good. Considering this, the
Castaneda Legacy forum has a history of being populated by mostly
losers. All they care about is the perceived bad about Carlos Castaneda.
They make implications of 'fraud' without realizing just what they are
implying. It took ME coming back here to point those implications out
and do they care? No, not at all. They will hold to the same defective
views no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented. Yes, these
are the qualities of losers.
______________________________________
ADDRESSING THE SECOND AQUAMAN POST BELOW:
Here's
the thing: If what Castaneda's don Juan shared doesn't sound like
anything they have heard before the skeptics say Castaneda made it up.
If it sounds like a similar philosophy held by another culture the
skeptics say Castaneda stole it. There is no winning with the Castaneda
skeptics. What do they care if Victor Sanchez lived among the
descendants of the Toltecs and verified that don Juan's knowledge is
indeed of ancient Toltec descent? THE SKEPTICS DON'T CARE! What do the
skeptics care if Mr Ruiz's family expected him to uphold their ancient
Toltec traditions and that don Migual Ruiz's teachings sound very
similar to the lessons of don Juan. THE SKEPTIC DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT
EITHER! The blind skeptics are losers who refuse to realize all that
matters is what is useful towards the betterment of personal lives.
Whatever does not work for you refuse to apply it in your lives. Whether
it be in the Bible, the Koran, Castaneda's book or anywhere else,
period!
______________________________________
TO TOM:
I'm
curious. Do you still blindly believe that the experts at UCLA would
have given Castaneda a Ph. D if they felt he lied and made the whole
thing up? You've made the obvious truth clear in that we are in
agreement: Jeremy Donovan is NOT QUALIFIED to determine who deserves and
who does not deserve a Ph. D in ANY FIELD. However, you stated that
UCLA would have given Castaneda a Ph. D even if they were not certain
whether or not don Juan was a real personage. I'm curious if you still
hold to this defective belief or have you changed your stance on this
issue?
MY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE SR FORUM:
_______________________________________
TO AQUAMAN:
Good
points you have made. Who is to say what exactly is truly authentic
about ANY wild claims in supposedly non-fiction books like the Bible,
the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita or the works of Carlos Castaneda. The wise
use what is useful. The unwise blow themselves up in defense of their
supposedly 'infallible and inerrant' books.
______________________________________
COMMENT ON ENERGY LOVER'S POST BELOW ME:
ENERGYLOVER WROTE:
"He lied saca, he got a PhD, big deal? "
MY COMMENT:
Then he went to the store, bought a frozen burrito and some milk, and paper towels and big deal, right?
People
like energylover and Jeremy Donovan would have us all believe that what
Castaneda accomplished, if he faked it, was easy and anyone could do
it. REALITY tells a different story. Reality says that if Castaneda
faked the whole thing, created New York Times bestsellers, made the
cover of Time Magazine and tricked UCLA into giving him a Ph. D that
would make Carlos Castaneda one of the greatest modern geniuses of the
UCLA anthropology age! I say those who feel I am incorrect about this
are indeed insane, but...I could be wrong. Prove me wrong, folks. Do the
same things yourselves so that we can all know just how easy it was to
accomplish! I don't remember DeMille's critical book about Castaneda on
the New York Times bestseller's list, do you?
NOTE: Of course,
none of you care how tempted I was to openly insult energylover. Of
course you don't care how much effort it takes for me to restrain
myself, right? Of course you don't care!
______________________________________
COMMENT ON THE QUALITIES OF LOSERS:
You
can easily spot losers because they tend to harp on the perceived bad
while doing their best to ignore the good. Considering this, the
Castaneda Legacy forum has a history of being populated by mostly
losers. All they care about is the perceived bad about Carlos Castaneda.
They make implications of 'fraud' without realizing just what they are
implying. It took ME coming back here to point those implications out
and do they care? No, not at all. They will hold to the same defective
views no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented. Yes, these
are the qualities of losers.
______________________________________
ADDRESSING THE SECOND AQUAMAN POST BELOW:
Here's
the thing: If what Castaneda's don Juan shared doesn't sound like
anything they have heard before the skeptics say Castaneda made it up.
If it sounds like a similar philosophy held by another culture the
skeptics say Castaneda stole it. There is no winning with the Castaneda
skeptics. What do they care if Victor Sanchez lived among the
descendants of the Toltecs and verified that don Juan's knowledge is
indeed of ancient Toltec descent? THE SKEPTICS DON'T CARE! What do the
skeptics care if Mr Ruiz's family expected him to uphold their ancient
Toltec traditions and that don Migual Ruiz's teachings sound very
similar to the lessons of don Juan. THE SKEPTIC DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT
EITHER! The blind skeptics are losers who refuse to realize all that
matters is what is useful towards the betterment of personal lives.
Whatever does not work for you refuse to apply it in your lives. Whether
it be in the Bible, the Koran, Castaneda's book or anywhere else,
period!
______________________________________
TO TOM:
I'm
curious. Do you still blindly believe that the experts at UCLA would
have given Castaneda a Ph. D if they felt he lied and made the whole
thing up? You've made the obvious truth clear in that we are in
agreement: Jeremy Donovan is NOT QUALIFIED to determine who deserves and
who does not deserve a Ph. D in ANY FIELD. However, you stated that
UCLA would have given Castaneda a Ph. D even if they were not certain
whether or not don Juan was a real personage. I'm curious if you still
hold to this defective belief or have you changed your stance on this
issue?