Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
alien wrote:First & foremost, the warrior who believes herself "qualified" to stalk someone other than herself should really be stalking her own self-importance. A better definition of stalking might simply be: "acute self-awareness" with regard to one's own belief systems, reactions, defenses and so on. A warrior stalks herself in order to know herself. It's that simple.
The only one qualified to stalk you... is you.
Alien (aka Quantum Shaman)Nice to see you Quantum Shaman, and thanks for lending your expertise and experience on this subject.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Sedna wrote:Nu Lang wrote:
Seems to me the heart of the matter is people rarely pay attention. The nagual is always there speaking, who will answer the call?...such are rare people.
So this Forest Wolf, who I don't think I know?? Was a trickster. But whats revealed is whats fixed in place that views the world as "should be such and such and so and so." So its an opportunity to see that, as painful as it may be at first. Tricksters aer good to have around as long as a good nagual is present when the **** hits the fan. Otherwise chaos is too great.
Naguals by nature 'seem' 'reasonable' and thus buffer the onslaught of the unknown.
Ok here, finally...could you please describe this in more detail. I believe this is at the heart of the matter.
The art of stalking is the
riddle of the heart; the puzzlement sorcerers feel upon becoming aware
of two things: first that the world appears to us to be unalterably
objective and factual, because of peculiarities of our awareness and
perception; second, that if different peculiarities of perception come
into play, the very things about the world that seem so unalterably
objective and factual change.
What a trickster can do for example, is they can alter the facts that people rested upon via the disguises they wear. When the facts are altered, people can become upset due to the revealing of being deceived and thus of not having control over the world as they perceived. So what is altered is this very need to have control in the first place, that's what should be stalked to the ap becomes fluid and one can handle any situation with ease and smiling. Takes time of course. So this is how a trickster for example can stalk a person to help them see, but of course no one can make another see, they can only take them to a threshold and then either one's rational explanation is abandoned or reinforced. If its abandoned, the energy redeploys and they see. This has to occur many times over, repetition, due to the flyer's influence which will seek to reestablish that rational fix...(keeps the chicken in the coop).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Enchantra wrote:
alien wrote:
First & foremost, the warrior who believes herself "qualified" to stalk someone other than herself should really be stalking her own self-importance. A better definition of stalking might simply be: "acute self-awareness" with regard to one's own belief systems, reactions, defenses and so on. A warrior stalks herself in order to know herself. It's that simple.
The only one qualified to stalk you... is you.
Alien (aka Quantum Shaman)Nice to see you Quantum Shaman, and thanks for lending your expertise and experience on this subject.
Good to see you here as well.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
alien wrote:
First & foremost, the warrior who believes herself "qualified" to stalk someone other than herself should really be stalking her own self-importance. A better definition of stalking might simply be: "acute self-awareness" with regard to one's own belief systems, reactions, defenses and so on. A warrior stalks herself in order to know herself. It's that simple.
As for ForestWolf... allow me to say from extensive experience, she was deranged at best and as someone else said, "a master troll." That's the best definition of her I've run across thus far, despite what her fan club of one would have you believe. She was one who believed herself qualified to stalk others, when it was patently obvious she needed to be stalking her own self-importance, ego and never-ending requirement for negative drama. I'm fairly certain that most others who were present for her shennanigans at the time would agree. Her role was not that of a trickster, but that of an egomaniacal tyrant who went so far as to create false identities and actively encourage others to "fall in love" with that "person", only to later announce that the alternym had "died" a horrible death of malaria or brain tumor. Yes, she did both, with no regard for the fact that the grief people experienced at these "deaths" was very real because they had been falsely led to believe these people were real. Many were deeply hurt by her manipulations and outright lies - which were not the actions of a teacher, but quite simply the self-indulgent machinations of a deluded child who had no regard for those she damaged in her deep addiction to drama and the intentional manifestation of chaos.
Another important factor to consider in the discussion of stalking is that virtually ANY twerp can hide behind an internet avatar and pretend to be a "master stalker", when the reality is that most are just master baiters who have no real personal power in their own lives, so they prey on the vulnerability of others. That isn't stalking. It's just **** behavior by some Don Wannabes who read a Castaneda book back in the 60s.
Bottom line... the best teacher is the one sitting on top of your shoulders, the one looking out at you from the mirror every morning, the one who has full access to all the bounty of Spirit through the art of silent knowing (gnosis). Sure, we can all learn from one another, but the moment we give up our power to someone else, we sign our own spiritual death warrant - which is precisely what happens when we try to exonerate and elevate someone such as ForestWolf (aka "River"). To say such actions are "for one's own good" is just a sad attempt to turn the tyrant into a hero - most likely to cover the fact that the person saying it was hoodwinked by the tyrant and doesn't want to admit his/her own inability to *see* through the tyrant in the first place.
The only one qualified to stalk you... is you.
Alien (aka Quantum Shaman)
Thanks, I get that what people are calling stalking is not stalking. What would be nice are some real life examples, scenes if you will, so that I can see for myself rather than being forced to take people's word for it. Some say that stalking others is a valid technique, I say show me...let me be the judge.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Nu Lang wrote:
Sedna wrote:
Nu Lang wrote:
Seems to me the heart of the matter is people rarely pay attention. The nagual is always there speaking, who will answer the call?...such are rare people.
So this Forest Wolf, who I don't think I know?? Was a trickster. But whats revealed is whats fixed in place that views the world as "should be such and such and so and so." So its an opportunity to see that, as painful as it may be at first. Tricksters aer good to have around as long as a good nagual is present when the **** hits the fan. Otherwise chaos is too great.
Naguals by nature 'seem' 'reasonable' and thus buffer the onslaught of the unknown.
Ok here, finally...could you please describe this in more detail. I believe this is at the heart of the matter.
The art of stalking is the riddle of the heart; the puzzlement sorcerers feel upon becoming aware of two things: first that the world appears to us to be unalterably objective and factual, because of peculiarities of our awareness and perception; second, that if different peculiarities of perception come into play, the very things about the world that seem so unalterably objective and factual change.
What a trickster can do for example, is they can alter the facts that people rested upon via the disguises they wear. When the facts are altered, people can become upset due to the revealing of being deceived and thus of not having control over the world as they perceived. So what is altered is this very need to have control in the first place, that's what should be stalked to the ap becomes fluid and one can handle any situation with ease and smiling. Takes time of course. So this is how a trickster for example can stalk a person to help them see, but of course no one can make another see, they can only take them to a threshold and then either one's rational explanation is abandoned or reinforced. If its abandoned, the energy redeploys and they see. This has to occur many times over, repetition, due to the flyer's influence which will seek to reestablish that rational fix...(keeps the chicken in the coop).
Better NL, and I appreciate your making the effort. I'd still like an actual example.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
I get that there was an agreement formed about what means what. I get that there is an agreement by a minority within this group that stalking others is a valid technique. What I don't get is how.
It seems to me that whatever that person did, even if it was good, didn't work. Seems to me that what that person did, in the view of those who thought it was good, was sort of the ultimate test. If the ultimate test did not work then that would suggest that it does not work. However, this minority who insists stalking others continues even in the face of it not working.
I'd like to take this subject out of the conceptual and bring it into the actual. I really would like some real life examples...from either group (for or against). Let's make this clear. I hope that no one disagrees that what we have on the subject is not as clear as it could be. Perhaps consider it stalking this thing called stalking (rather than self or other)...and I'd like to think it is an inquiry that both sides could participate in. Perhaps, by participating in making this clearer, each side would see something that right now is hidden (I don't know what that something might be...but just saying). Perhaps when seen clearly there will be no more misunderstandings on the subject.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Sedna wrote:Enchantra wrote:
Gonzo wrote:
Tell that to Sedna.
Not sure you heard me. I was agreeing that what you said here:
Gonzo wrote:
What continues to be ignored by many are their own reaction
examine one's own motives.That is stalking by traditional definition and I think Sedna and I agree on that.
What is questioned, though, by me as well, is the use of the word stalking to describe a pattern of behaviours wherein folks observe and manipulate others all the while saying it is for their own good.
Not sure I am really following this conversation well, but yes that is my question...why use that word when there are other words that are more clear? There doesn't seem a purpose, other than to obsucate matters, to using a misleading word...just saying.
Gonzo, if there is an example (which you seem to be suggesting that there is), please share it.
Argh..I responded in another thread. I'll write up a description. fwiw, I'd be willing to entertain a word other than "stalking", however, the word seems to fit events and techniques, as stated previously. I think one of the sticking points is how it is discussed in CC, especially the business of stalking oneself.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Nu Lang wrote:
What a trickster can do for example, is they can alter the facts that people rested upon via the disguises they wear. When the facts are altered, people can become upset due to the revealing of being deceived and thus of not having control over the world as they perceived. So what is altered is this very need to have control in the first place, that's what should be stalked to the ap becomes fluid and one can handle any situation with ease and smiling. Takes time of course. So this is how a trickster for example can stalk a person to help them see, but of course no one can make another see, they can only take them to a threshold and then either one's rational explanation is abandoned or reinforced. If its abandoned, the energy redeploys and they see. This has to occur many times over, repetition, due to the flyer's influence which will seek to reestablish that rational fix...(keeps the chicken in the coop). When I read CC's books, what I understood of the tricks was a person being prop'd into a space of dual realities (their own and the one in front of them) and that space, which is ordinarily destructive to a ordinary person as people who experience breaks in the continuity generally go crazy), was used by the nagual to shove them into second attention. Second attention, as I understand it, was a more heightened awareness. Ordinarily people are not able to reach heightened awareness on their own, without drugs, so that a nagual had to employ trickery to soften up the glue that holds one in first attention. After being shoved, skillfully, into second attention a certain number of times one could then prop themselves into it. My understanding is that it took a fair amount of time in the second attention to be able to sustain it.
Without getting into whether this person was using stalking, did the trickster cause people to go into heightened awareness? I couldn't possibly know this because you didn't include an example. Did anyone make this inquiry? However, as there is some debate between those who saw what happened one way and those who saw it another way, it is possible. All I can assertain from that is that whatever happened was viewable in different ways on different levels...I'd still like a clear example.
Also, if people went into heightened awareness did the trickster do anything with it, guide in any way? This would be one way to determine if the trickster was a nagual. Again, without examples I can't compare it against the books. Anyways, not sure how much value secondhand accounts of it are.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Sedna wrote:Gonzo wrote:
Who said it was for their own good? Is the shell game designed for the mark's own good? Indirectly, it is for the mark's own good if he realizes he has been conned and more importantly WHY he was conned. I posted the comment that you cannot con an honest man. If you take that beyond the confines of money into the area of self-importance, you have the kind of stalking I'm talking about.
Which reminds me of a little Zen story, when monks were out in a group doing traditional begging...as they turned a corner, some wag yelled out, "Oh venerable Sir..." and all the monks turned to respond.
Oh this is great, you are good. I think I get this (finally), *does a happy little excited dance,* thank you.
Ok...let's see if I have this right so far. The end goal is to be an honest man (or woman)...but what does this mean?
What I am gathering is that someone came along and did something (what?) that upset a lot of people because they were not being honest, and instead of realizing that they were not being honest they blamed the person...is that right?
Ok, if I am tracking correctly so far, then let me ask this...does this not prove conclusively that stalking others does not work? If it is not conclusive then what would constitute a higher test than this?
Heh. I equate the goal described by don Juan in "Tales of Power" (achieving the totality of self) with being an honest man, a person with, as Zen would say, no points to defend. Prior to that achievement, the person is vulnerable to insult, disrespect, etc...all items of self-importance, the very items the mentioned "trickster" exposed.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Gonzo wrote:
Heh. I equate the goal described by don Juan in "Tales of Power" (achieving the totality of self) with being an honest man, a person with, as Zen would say, no points to defend. Prior to that achievement, the person is vulnerable to insult, disrespect, etc...all items of self-importance, the very items the mentioned "trickster" exposed.
Then you and I are in agreement on this point. To me it is a return to one's true self and involves a level of clarity. It would seem to me that we leave this in favor of an invented self, one that is created to protect us (from what, I don't know) and be more socially acceptable. It would seem that this is intesified by one's families, communities, and society which attempts to force upon one an image of the way they should be. When people give up who they are in favor of being who they are suppose to be this represents a break from the real world. It would seem to me that people then step outside of the real world and their real life into this made up world that is primarily made up with words. In other words, one begins to live inside contepts.
The inability to speak of things like stalking others directly would be one symptom of this. An example might look like two people (a true self and an invented self) witness a car accident. The true self describes how the two cars were traveling and how one failed to stop at a stop sign and that they then crashed. The invented self describes that the driver was drunk but cannot relate the details. The invented self can only speak in inventions.
However, I am still not clear on how stalking (whether self, others, or things) will help one go from their invented self to their true self.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
It should be obvious by now that at least four of the people conned by FW are present in this thread. Of the four, again rather obviously, I'm the only one who considered the con to be artful (or as stated prior, "master") stalking. Therefore, I'll limit my description of events to those which only involved me.
FW ran several sockpuppets, one of which was "Matt". I originally encountered FW on another forum where initially she posted things critical of the admin, with which, at the time, I agreed. Eventually this led to a rift between me and the admin and I started my own board. FW soon arrived, and shortly behind her came "Matt". I was warned, by the other admin that "Matt" was a sockpuppet, but at the time refused to accept that. "Matt" and I got into several discussions about stalking, which at the time I called "mindfucking", thinking I had some abilities in that regard. (I had been raised primarily by my grandmother who was quite adept at the art of mindfucking/stalking, a grand example of which is Edward Albee's play "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?")
"Matt" played dumb while I explained the fine art which revolves around discovering another's shortcomings or points of defense, issues of importance, and exposing them. Meantime, the process was me really being stalked by FW as Matt, playing dumb while in my assumed expertise I explained the process.
When FW finally revealed her stunt, she appeared on my forum and slam-dunked my ass.
At one time I had the transcripts and the postings...unfortunately, they are all lost, else I could provide the real data itself rather than a reference to it.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Gonzo wrote:It should be obvious by now that at least four of the people conned by FW are present in this thread. Of the four, again rather obviously, I'm the only one who considered the con to be artful (or as stated prior, "master") stalking. Therefore, I'll limit my description of events to those which only involved me.
FW ran several sockpuppets, one of which was "Matt". I originally encountered FW on another forum where initially she posted things critical of the admin, with which, at the time, I agreed. Eventually this led to a rift between me and the admin and I started my own board. FW soon arrived, and shortly behind her came "Matt". I was warned, by the other admin that "Matt" was a sockpuppet, but at the time refused to accept that. "Matt" and I got into several discussions about stalking, which at the time I called "mindfucking", thinking I had some abilities in that regard. (I had been raised primarily by my grandmother who was quite adept at the art of mindfucking/stalking, a grand example of which is Edward Albee's play "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?")
"Matt" played dumb while I explained the fine art which revolves around discovering another's shortcomings or points of defense, issues of importance, and exposing them. Meantime, the process was me really being stalked by FW as Matt, playing dumb while in my assumed expertise I explained the process.
When FW finally revealed her stunt, she appeared on my forum and slam-dunked my ass.
At one time I had the transcripts and the postings...unfortunately, they are all lost, else I could provide the real data itself rather than a reference to it.All of this is great, and certainly does prove that FW was a manipulator and most likely still is. Heck I wouldn't be at all surprised if she was here, in disguise as well. LOL However, none of this proves that she was stalking, by the Toltec definition of the word, only that some folks have adopted a new meaning of the word. Hey just had a thought, maybe FW is the one who coined it (not Lujan) ? Who knows?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Enchantra wrote:
Gonzo wrote:
It should be obvious by now that at least four of the people conned by FW are present in this thread. Of the four, again rather obviously, I'm the only one who considered the con to be artful (or as stated prior, "master") stalking. Therefore, I'll limit my description of events to those which only involved me.
FW ran several sockpuppets, one of which was "Matt". I originally encountered FW on another forum where initially she posted things critical of the admin, with which, at the time, I agreed. Eventually this led to a rift between me and the admin and I started my own board. FW soon arrived, and shortly behind her came "Matt". I was warned, by the other admin that "Matt" was a sockpuppet, but at the time refused to accept that. "Matt" and I got into several discussions about stalking, which at the time I called "mindfucking", thinking I had some abilities in that regard. (I had been raised primarily by my grandmother who was quite adept at the art of mindfucking/stalking, a grand example of which is Edward Albee's play "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?")
"Matt" played dumb while I explained the fine art which revolves around discovering another's shortcomings or points of defense, issues of importance, and exposing them. Meantime, the process was me really being stalked by FW as Matt, playing dumb while in my assumed expertise I explained the process.
When FW finally revealed her stunt, she appeared on my forum and slam-dunked my ass.
At one time I had the transcripts and the postings...unfortunately, they are all lost, else I could provide the real data itself rather than a reference to it.All of this is great, and certainly does prove that FW was a manipulator and most likely still is. Heck I wouldn't be at all surprised if she was here, in disguise as well. LOL However, none of this proves that she was stalking, by the Toltec definition of the word, only that some folks have adopted a new meaning of the word. Hey just had a thought, maybe FW is the one who coined it (not Lujan) ? Who knows?
Good point - I never thought FW was "stalking" anyone, including herself. Her games were largely designed to make herself appear "better" than everyone else - an ego-feeding. Of course, that's easy to do when the deck is stacked and all the cards are jokers.
As for her being here... nothing would surprise me, but so far I haven't *seen* her energy here. So unless she's become much better at her games, she is probably off in her own realm, hoodwinking those who desperately want to be hoodwinked. LOL.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Sedna wrote:
I get that there was an agreement formed about what means what. I get that there is an agreement by a minority within this group that stalking others is a valid technique. What I don't get is how.
It seems to me that whatever that person did, even if it was good, didn't work. Seems to me that what that person did, in the view of those who thought it was good, was sort of the ultimate test. If the ultimate test did not work then that would suggest that it does not work. However, this minority who insists stalking others continues even in the face of it not working.
I'd like to take this subject out of the conceptual and bring it into the actual. I really would like some real life examples...from either group (for or against). Let's make this clear. I hope that no one disagrees that what we have on the subject is not as clear as it could be. Perhaps consider it stalking this thing called stalking (rather than self or other)...and I'd like to think it is an inquiry that both sides could participate in. Perhaps, by participating in making this clearer, each side would see something that right now is hidden (I don't know what that something might be...but just saying). Perhaps when seen clearly there will be no more misunderstandings on the subject.Hi Sedna. Just wanted to say your posts are great.
I can give a stalking example. One night I was out late with another man. My boyfriend, he had a suspicion because I broke a date with him. He sent me a text and an email and I didn't respond. So he got in his car, drove to my place and camped out there all night, until I had to be at work in the morning. I didn't come home, he left, and broke up with me the next day. I was stalked by him for sure. To have a sneaky suspicion, then go and park your car and just watch all night, looking to 'catch prey' is stalking. He may have not been into Castaneda, but he did end up using the techniques. He snuck it on me, then the next day revealed what he had done.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Enchantra wrote:Gonzo wrote:It should be obvious by now that at least four of the people conned by FW are present in this thread. Of the four, again rather obviously, I'm the only one who considered the con to be artful (or as stated prior, "master") stalking. Therefore, I'll limit my description of events to those which only involved me.
FW ran several sockpuppets, one of which was "Matt". I originally encountered FW on another forum where initially she posted things critical of the admin, with which, at the time, I agreed. Eventually this led to a rift between me and the admin and I started my own board. FW soon arrived, and shortly behind her came "Matt". I was warned, by the other admin that "Matt" was a sockpuppet, but at the time refused to accept that. "Matt" and I got into several discussions about stalking, which at the time I called "mindfucking", thinking I had some abilities in that regard. (I had been raised primarily by my grandmother who was quite adept at the art of mindfucking/stalking, a grand example of which is Edward Albee's play "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?")
"Matt" played dumb while I explained the fine art which revolves around discovering another's shortcomings or points of defense, issues of importance, and exposing them. Meantime, the process was me really being stalked by FW as Matt, playing dumb while in my assumed expertise I explained the process.
When FW finally revealed her stunt, she appeared on my forum and slam-dunked my ass.
At one time I had the transcripts and the postings...unfortunately, they are all lost, else I could provide the real data itself rather than a reference to it.All of this is great, and certainly does prove that FW was a manipulator and most likely still is. Heck I wouldn't be at all surprised if she was here, in disguise as well. LOL However, none of this proves that she was stalking, by the Toltec definition of the word, only that some folks have adopted a new meaning of the word. Hey just had a thought, maybe FW is the one who coined it (not Lujan) ? Who knows?
Be simple with the definition. Equate it to fishing. Determine the right bait, set the line in the water, watch the bobber, and when the fish bites, set the hook and reel him in. It seems to me an accurate description of what she did. The excuse now is to say there is the "right" kind of stalking (purposeful, with benevolent intent by an acknowledged Nagual/Adept?guru), and the wrong kind, by God knows what, but at least a trickster. Bad trickster...bad....
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Be simple with the definition. Equate it to fishing. Determine the right bait, set the line in the water, watch the bobber, and when the fish bites, set the hook and reel him in. It seems to me an accurate description of what she did. The excuse now is to say there is the "right" kind of stalking (purposeful, with benevolent intent by an acknowledged Nagual/Adept?guru), and the wrong kind, by God knows what, but at least a trickster. Bad trickster...bad....
Oh I agree she did that! She definitely set traps for people to stumble into. And for that matter I do think she stalked aggressively. However her using the techniques didn't do any good like shift the AP or anything. Her techniques just created drama and outraged people. I see FW as more of an energy vampire than anything. She was a feeder, She liked to get her hooks into someone and manipulate them. And the funny thing was, she used to say someone cannot rob another of their energy! I beg to differ.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
datura8 wrote:
Be simple with the definition. Equate it to fishing. Determine the right bait, set the line in the water, watch the bobber, and when the fish bites, set the hook and reel him in. It seems to me an accurate description of what she did. The excuse now is to say there is the "right" kind of stalking (purposeful, with benevolent intent by an acknowledged Nagual/Adept?guru), and the wrong kind, by God knows what, but at least a trickster. Bad trickster...bad....
Oh I agree she did that! She definitely set traps for people to stumble into. And for that matter I do think she stalked aggressively. However her using the techniques didn't do any good like shift the AP or anything. Her techniques just created drama and outraged people. I see FW as more of an energy vampire than anything. She was a feeder, She liked to get her hooks into someone and manipulate them. And the funny thing was, she used to say someone cannot rob another of their energy! I beg to differ.
So, as I said, hers was an example of the wrong kind of stalking, for, as you say, no one's AP got shifted, which apparently is the function of an acknowledged, benficent Nagual.
So, tell me...why were people outraged?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Gonzo wrote:
datura8 wrote:
Be simple with the definition. Equate it to fishing. Determine the right bait, set the line in the water, watch the bobber, and when the fish bites, set the hook and reel him in. It seems to me an accurate description of what she did. The excuse now is to say there is the "right" kind of stalking (purposeful, with benevolent intent by an acknowledged Nagual/Adept?guru), and the wrong kind, by God knows what, but at least a trickster. Bad trickster...bad....
Oh I agree she did that! She definitely set traps for people to stumble into. And for that matter I do think she stalked aggressively. However her using the techniques didn't do any good like shift the AP or anything. Her techniques just created drama and outraged people. I see FW as more of an energy vampire than anything. She was a feeder, She liked to get her hooks into someone and manipulate them. And the funny thing was, she used to say someone cannot rob another of their energy! I beg to differ.
So, as I said, hers was an example of the wrong kind of stalking, for, as you say, no one's AP got shifted, which apparently is the function of an acknowledged, benficent Nagual.
So, tell me...why were people outraged?
Gonzo, she created a man, had someone fall in love with them, then faked their death. That's an example why people were outraged with her. And it wasn't just that, it was her going after the TNF forum to destroy it, and ruin it for everyone. It was a beloved forum then it was destroyed, just because she didn't like the people, or maybe when she had been there (under other guises) she wasn't accepted. I still remember to this day how excited she got when she found out the forum was unmoderated and she knew she couldn't be banned. It only made it easier for her to destroy the place.
I just hope she never comes here.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Ok, this is my first day of moderating this section of the forum. I am pretty liberal when it comes to people having their say; however, we have two stalking threads and two of them are becoming the topic of forestwolf. I think we have addressed enough of her and the past. The past is the past, it should die, esp a past like that. So I'm asking that no more posts about forestwolf be done. We have assessed she was a troll, a con, she stalked people, some say it wasn't stalking it was just obsessive. Whatever the case enough is enough, lets drop discussing her and get back to disscussing stalking.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Enchantra wrote:
Gonzo wrote:
It should be obvious by now that at least four of the people conned by FW are present in this thread. Of the four, again rather obviously, I'm the only one who considered the con to be artful (or as stated prior, "master") stalking. Therefore, I'll limit my description of events to those which only involved me.
FW ran several sockpuppets, one of which was "Matt". I originally encountered FW on another forum where initially she posted things critical of the admin, with which, at the time, I agreed. Eventually this led to a rift between me and the admin and I started my own board. FW soon arrived, and shortly behind her came "Matt". I was warned, by the other admin that "Matt" was a sockpuppet, but at the time refused to accept that. "Matt" and I got into several discussions about stalking, which at the time I called "mindfucking", thinking I had some abilities in that regard. (I had been raised primarily by my grandmother who was quite adept at the art of mindfucking/stalking, a grand example of which is Edward Albee's play "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?")
"Matt" played dumb while I explained the fine art which revolves around discovering another's shortcomings or points of defense, issues of importance, and exposing them. Meantime, the process was me really being stalked by FW as Matt, playing dumb while in my assumed expertise I explained the process.
When FW finally revealed her stunt, she appeared on my forum and slam-dunked my ass.
At one time I had the transcripts and the postings...unfortunately, they are all lost, else I could provide the real data itself rather than a reference to it.All of this is great, and certainly does prove that FW was a manipulator and most likely still is. Heck I wouldn't be at all surprised if she was here, in disguise as well. LOL However, none of this proves that she was stalking, by the Toltec definition of the word, only that some folks have adopted a new meaning of the word. Hey just had a thought, maybe FW is the one who coined it (not Lujan) ? Who knows?
Yes, I agree...how is this stalking? And, if this is stalking, what did it do? Again, I just see that it doesn't work.
However, and I am sorry to be such a pill about this, but your example isn't really all that clear.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
datura8 wrote:
Sedna wrote:
I get that there was an agreement formed about what means what. I get that there is an agreement by a minority within this group that stalking others is a valid technique. What I don't get is how.
It seems to me that whatever that person did, even if it was good, didn't work. Seems to me that what that person did, in the view of those who thought it was good, was sort of the ultimate test. If the ultimate test did not work then that would suggest that it does not work. However, this minority who insists stalking others continues even in the face of it not working.
I'd like to take this subject out of the conceptual and bring it into the actual. I really would like some real life examples...from either group (for or against). Let's make this clear. I hope that no one disagrees that what we have on the subject is not as clear as it could be. Perhaps consider it stalking this thing called stalking (rather than self or other)...and I'd like to think it is an inquiry that both sides could participate in. Perhaps, by participating in making this clearer, each side would see something that right now is hidden (I don't know what that something might be...but just saying). Perhaps when seen clearly there will be no more misunderstandings on the subject.Hi Sedna. Just wanted to say your posts are great.
I can give a stalking example. One night I was out late with another man. My boyfriend, he had a suspicion because I broke a date with him. He sent me a text and an email and I didn't respond. So he got in his car, drove to my place and camped out there all night, until I had to be at work in the morning. I didn't come home, he left, and broke up with me the next day. I was stalked by him for sure. To have a sneaky suspicion, then go and park your car and just watch all night, looking to 'catch prey' is stalking. He may have not been into Castaneda, but he did end up using the techniques. He snuck it on me, then the next day revealed what he had done.
Thanks, and yes I agree that this is stalking by every definition...but am not sure this is what Castaneda was suggesting. If that guy hadn't broken up with you, I hope you would have broken up with him...what a creep. However, that you broke a date with him for another guy should have been indication enough that you didn't really want to be with him in the first place. Pfft men...what are you going to do?!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Gonzo wrote:
Be simple with the definition. Equate it to fishing. Determine the right bait, set the line in the water, watch the bobber, and when the fish bites, set the hook and reel him in.
Ok, this also seems a good definition of stalking. However, I keep asking how this helps anyone...the stalker or the person stalked?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Sedna wrote:
Thanks, and yes I agree that this is stalking by every definition...but am not sure this is what Castaneda was suggesting. If that guy hadn't broken up with you, I hope you would have broken up with him...what a creep. However, that you broke a date with him for another guy should have been indication enough that you didn't really want to be with him in the first place. Pfft men...what are you going to do?!
Oh I know. Well an update on that, the guy that I saw that night I'm still seeing and we're madly in love, so I'm glad I did and I have no regrets. Though I admit it wasn't impeccable behavior of me. What I should have done was broke up with him in the first place when I had my doubts. That would've been the right thing to do.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Sedna wrote:
Gonzo wrote:
Be simple with the definition. Equate it to fishing. Determine the right bait, set the line in the water, watch the bobber, and when the fish bites, set the hook and reel him in.
Ok, this also seems a good definition of stalking. However, I keep asking how this helps anyone...the stalker or the person stalked? I don't see it helping anyone.
One would have to be like some very powerful person to be able to stalk and shift the AP of another for them. Which is one of the main things stalking is for. But I look at it this way, most people with that kind of power are generally impeccable and unconcerned. They do not care about the follies of another. So I don't see a person of power as stalking another in the first place, and what I mean by that is one who has power, if they had it, wouldnt use it. I think alien once referred to some of these stalker types on the internet as kids in capes. Thats generally what the internet stalkers are.
I don't really see how stalking another is beneficial. But yes per my example, I was definitely stalked lol
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
datura8 wrote:
Sedna wrote:
Gonzo wrote:
Be simple with the definition. Equate it to fishing. Determine the right bait, set the line in the water, watch the bobber, and when the fish bites, set the hook and reel him in.
Ok, this also seems a good definition of stalking. However, I keep asking how this helps anyone...the stalker or the person stalked? I don't see it helping anyone.
One would have to be like some very powerful person to be able to stalk and shift the AP of another for them. Which is one of the main things stalking is for. But I look at it this way, most people with that kind of power are generally impeccable and unconcerned. They do not care about the follies of another. So I don't see a person of power as stalking another in the first place, and what I mean by that is one who has power, if they had it, wouldnt use it. I think alien once referred to some of these stalker types on the internet as kids in capes. Thats generally what the internet stalkers are.
I don't really see how stalking another is beneficial. But yes per my example, I was definitely stalked lol
I agree, I do not see stalking another as helpful either...but some have said it is and I want to give that a fair shake, just in case. Although, they haven't shown me how it could be.
It is easy to make assumptions how it would be, but it seems to me that one really couldn't know until they are a person with that much power. While my focus is on stalking atm, another thing that seems confusing is all the varied interpretations of what moving an AP really means. Castaneda wrote that it would be to move into a new world as complete as this one, but I have also read in forums that it is to move into heightened awareness, and on other forums that it is to change emotions and perspectives.
I was just reading Spud's intro...and have to agree with Spud that this forum is not noob friendly. There are a lot of agreements about what means what and no one is really posting clearly for anyone outside of that agreement, fwiw.
|
